America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by victor809. 312 replies replies.
7 Pages<1234567>
New minimum wage law blocked by GOP.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
gryphonms Offline
#201 Posted: Thu, May 15 2014, 1:15 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
Another side of this discussion is the fact that many people who had good jobs now have minum wage jobs. Our government is focusing on making minimum wage high enough to make all jobs pay enough so no one working lives in poverty. They should be focusing on bringing a manufacturing base back which would again provide good jobs. Minimum wage jobs were never meant to be careers. They have became careers due to our movement to a service based society.
HockeyDad Offline
#202 Posted: Thu, May 15 2014, 1:31 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
The entire debate is disingenuous and is merely a ploy to score votes for Democrats without even having to pass anything. I applaud them for the gamesmanship.
Brewha Offline
#203 Posted: Thu, May 15 2014, 7:54 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
victor809 wrote:
Dude... you never took an economics class did you?
If the value of a labor is worth less than what the labor pool is willing to do the work for, then the work does not get done. This isn't hard to understand. If specific labor produces $1 worth of value for an hour's worth of work (as in the intrinsic value of the goods increases by $1 due to an hour's worth of labor), I can't pay $10 for the labor. If no one will work for the $1, then the work is not worth doing within our society.

And no, a job is NOT "worth what it costs to have people do it". If the product of that job is worth less than the labor the people producing it demand, then it's not going to happen.

You simply don't get it. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I have simply pointed out to you that your desire to raise the minimum wage (you've never said to what level, but as you claim all workers must have a living wage, I will assume it is to between $10 and $20 an hour) will have significant impact on the demand curve surrounding labor. I asked you to explain how you'd deal with that.... and you fall back to "you're an evil fat cat capitalist" claims.

Get better at your arguments Brew, and stop dodging my points, I get very bored when you don't actually engage in a conversation.


A job is not "worth what it cost to have people do it"? Learned that in economics class did you? True if a product cost too much to produce it won't sell. But you really didn't think we were talking about that did you? We were talking about the cost of labor driving the value of the product. And how people can leverage labor to be lower than is fair.

I'm not dodging your points, if you can call them that. I was mistakenly attempting to appeal to your sense of fair play. But I understand your point. Economics have the harsh reality of whoever has the gold makes the rules. And if people starve because of it that's "economics". It's not really wrong, after all it's what Prof. buttwhistle told you in economics.

You have my credit though. You can rationalize your way out of any moral dilemma.
tailgater Offline
#204 Posted: Thu, May 15 2014, 10:14 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brew,
So who decides what is "fair"?

You're clearly stating that a business owner can not. So you defer to our politicians. Most of whom have never run a business enterprise.

Truth is, more people work for small business than for the walmarts of the world. Your "fairness" argument will hurt small businesses.
Not to mention, it will drive more business out of our country.
victor809 Offline
#205 Posted: Fri, May 16 2014, 11:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
A job is not "worth what it cost to have people do it"? Learned that in economics class did you? True if a product cost too much to produce it won't sell. But you really didn't think we were talking about that did you? We were talking about the cost of labor driving the value of the product. And how people can leverage labor to be lower than is fair.

I'm not dodging your points, if you can call them that. I was mistakenly attempting to appeal to your sense of fair play. But I understand your point. Economics have the harsh reality of whoever has the gold makes the rules. And if people starve because of it that's "economics". It's not really wrong, after all it's what Prof. buttwhistle told you in economics.

You have my credit though. You can rationalize your way out of any moral dilemma.


Come on brew... you're falling back on "morality" again.
Perhaps this would be easier to understand if you realized that labor is no different than any other product on the market. Buying 40 hours of labor is no different than buying a tv. If the government artificially set the price of a tv at $1000 minimum, I can guarantee you that would all but eliminate demand for smaller 20" tvs.

Do you think "cost of labor drives the value of the product"? No, it doesn't. "Value" is already intrinsic to the product. Cost to produce simply drives how much of the product the market will buy, given its intrinsic value. As for your accusation that "people can leverage labor to be lower than is fair"... of course the can. But do you really think they do in the us? Just because their workers are on food stamps IS NOT proof that Walmart is paying them less than is fair for their labor. You don't know what these workers are doing, how many hours they are working, or the value they are contributing to the supply chain. Your knee jerk reaction is that it must be unfair, because they are poor. But that's not necessarily true.

Yes, you were dodging my points. I asked very simple questions, such as HOW you intend to deal with specific unintended consequences of your actions. These are very rational questions, and not answering them, or having a contingency plan in place implies that you haven't thought this minimum wage thing through past step one... and you have a naive view that if you just force companies to give people more money, the world will turn rosy.
HockeyDad Offline
#206 Posted: Fri, May 16 2014, 11:29 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
Raising the minimum wage is fair and moral therefore any unintended consequences are fair and moral.
tailgater Offline
#207 Posted: Fri, May 16 2014, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Fair share.
Fair wages.

What's next?

It seems to me that these concepts are based more on hurting the evil rich guys than it is to help the poor.

"we know that joe blow is only worth $3.50 per hour, but his boss has a 3 car garage and vacations in Tahiti. We should even things out."
victor809 Offline
#208 Posted: Fri, May 16 2014, 11:52 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hey Tail... I'm getting rid of my old 25" tv... wanna buy it? Gov't says you gotta pay be $1000 for it. :)
gryphonms Offline
#209 Posted: Fri, May 16 2014, 12:33 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
We already have a business model of what mandated wages do to business. At one time Detroit had 12 vehicle manufacturing plants. Now they have 1. Unions did a great job of increasing wages, unfortunately when you are unemployed you earn nothing.

This is the business model for any company forced to pay higher wages than supply and demand dictates. Is it more moral to increase wages to the point that a business closes or pay a wage based on the value of the work?
Brewha Offline
#210 Posted: Sat, May 17 2014, 11:47 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
Brew,
So who decides what is "fair"?

You're clearly stating that a business owner can not. So you defer to our politicians. Most of whom have never run a business enterprise.

Truth is, more people work for small business than for the walmarts of the world. Your "fairness" argument will hurt small businesses.
Not to mention, it will drive more business out of our country.


I don't think fair is that hard to see, or such a point of argument once All Of the facts are presented. And fair should be decided by "the people", not just the wealthy.

Now my brother owns a small business and often cannot afford the labor he needs. And again, we need rules to protect small business. But people like him are a small part of the overall problem of depressed wages in this country.

When wages are kept artificially low by the big mega corporations it hurts us all.
Brewha Offline
#211 Posted: Sat, May 17 2014, 12:08 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
victor809 wrote:
Come on brew... you're falling back on "morality" again.
Perhaps this would be easier to understand if you realized that labor is no different than any other product on the market. Buying 40 hours of labor is no different than buying a tv. If the government artificially set the price of a tv at $1000 minimum, I can guarantee you that would all but eliminate demand for smaller 20" tvs.

Do you think "cost of labor drives the value of the product"? No, it doesn't. "Value" is already intrinsic to the product. Cost to produce simply drives how much of the product the market will buy, given its intrinsic value. As for your accusation that "people can leverage labor to be lower than is fair"... of course the can. But do you really think they do in the us? Just because their workers are on food stamps IS NOT proof that Walmart is paying them less than is fair for their labor. You don't know what these workers are doing, how many hours they are working, or the value they are contributing to the supply chain. Your knee jerk reaction is that it must be unfair, because they are poor. But that's not necessarily true.

Yes, you were dodging my points. I asked very simple questions, such as HOW you intend to deal with specific unintended consequences of your actions. These are very rational questions, and not answering them, or having a contingency plan in place implies that you haven't thought this minimum wage thing through past step one... and you have a naive view that if you just force companies to give people more money, the world will turn rosy.

While it is admittedly difficult for me to discuss wage control apart from morality I appreciate that is the only way you can think about it. I do enjoy your made-up, what if, examples of the terrible things that might come from wage or price control. $1000 for TV? Honestly Victor that's just a meaningless example. So I guess that only rich people would on these thousand dollar TVs and the rest would go without???

Sorry Victor, most of your questions seem like grandstanding and not even reasonable questions in the first place.

To boil it down, your vision of economics free from morality leads a society to a place where a small ruling class owns everything and most everyone is a conscript. Ultimately those with the wealth leverage everyone into poverty. Because that's the way economics work. Ever play Monopoly? Well the best lesson it can teach you is that when you win and own it all, the next thing that happens all the money goes back in the box.
tailgater Offline
#212 Posted: Sat, May 17 2014, 8:44 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
I don't think fair is that hard to see, or such a point of argument once All Of the facts are presented. And fair should be decided by "the people", not just the wealthy.

Now my brother owns a small business and often cannot afford the labor he needs. And again, we need rules to protect small business. But people like him are a small part of the overall problem of depressed wages in this country.

When wages are kept artificially low by the big mega corporations it hurts us all.


Well said, Comrade Brewha.
HockeyDad Offline
#213 Posted: Sun, May 18 2014, 7:43 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
Brewha wrote:
I don't think fair is that hard to see, or such a point of argument once All Of the facts are presented. And fair should be decided by "the people", not just the wealthy.

Now my brother owns a small business and often cannot afford the labor he needs. And again, we need rules to protect small business. But people like him are a small part of the overall problem of depressed wages in this country.

When wages are kept artificially low by the big mega corporations it hurts us all.




If you want to raise minimum wage, raise minimum wage. Don't try to carve out some special exemption for your brother and small business. Nobody is going to want to work for him at $8 an hour when they can go to Walmart and work for $15. If your brother can't handle the new minimum wage he should go out of business. That is an intended consequence. There needs to be winners and losers.....he loses. When he closes his doors, at least he will know it was "fair".
Brewha Offline
#214 Posted: Sun, May 18 2014, 12:33 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
Well said, Comrade Brewha.










Story of my life, cast your bread upon the water and it comes back burnt toast.
HockeyDad Offline
#215 Posted: Sun, May 18 2014, 12:43 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
How do you keep the fish from eating the bread?
victor809 Offline
#216 Posted: Sun, May 18 2014, 2:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brew... You missed, or intentionally skipped, the points again.
First, I'm not saying minimum wages will result in $1000 TVs. I'm not stupid enough to claim to know what the price would be. I'm saying that the govt setting a minimum wage on labor is the same as the govt setting a minimum price on TVs.
Second... I made salient points about the impact a minimum wage would have on education and labor pool. Points which are based on tested economic theory. You first ignored the points, along with my question on how you would deal with them... Now you're just calling it grandstanding. Why don't you try actually answering them?
Abrignac Online
#217 Posted: Sun, May 18 2014, 4:23 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,358
HockeyDad wrote:
If you want to raise minimum wage, raise minimum wage. Don't try to carve out some special exemption for your brother and small business. Nobody is going to want to work for him at $8 an hour when they can go to Walmart and work for $15. If your brother can't handle the new minimum wage he should go out of business. That is an intended consequence. There needs to be winners and losers.....he loses. When he closes his doors, at least he will know it was "fair".


This is indicative of the wrongful quest to right the evils of society. Every action begets another action.

Kinda like over correcting a swerving car in a curve on a wet road. You're gonna run in the ditch. It's only a matter of which side.
tailgater Offline
#218 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 10:17 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
frankj1 Offline
#219 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 12:10 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
tailgater wrote:
As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.

and there will be growth in the Spring

skipped most of this thread so I hope this wasn't a previously identified reference.

I can not overstate how much I loved that movie.
victor809 Offline
#220 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 3:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
I don't think fair is that hard to see, or such a point of argument once All Of the facts are presented. And fair should be decided by "the people", not just the wealthy.

Now my brother owns a small business and often cannot afford the labor he needs. And again, we need rules to protect small business. But people like him are a small part of the overall problem of depressed wages in this country.

When wages are kept artificially low by the big mega corporations it hurts us all.



I don't know how I missed this before...
I need to throw this out here because it pisses me off. Why do you think small businesses are a "small part" of the problem? You do realize that those EVIL BIG MEGA CORPORATIONS are not the main employers, right?

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/nov2009/sb20091112_157141.htm

from Business Week: "The Census data on the SBA Web site shows that, in 2006 (the latest year available), 50.2% of U.S. employment lies in businesses with fewer than 500 employees. But recently I began looking at data from payroll provider Automatic Data Processing (ADP), which uses payroll data to track U.S. employment. ADP's data shows that the share of U.S. employment in businesses with less than 500 employees is more than 30 percentage points higher. In 2006, the ADP data showed that 82.9% of U.S. employment was in businesses with less than 500 employees. "

So we're looking at between 50 and 80% of all employment in the US is NOT part of evil big corporations...

Listen Brew. I understand you just want to help people... your big heart just bleeds every time you see a crackhead sleeping barefoot on the sidewalk. But seriously, you can't possibly expect to be taken seriously when you don't actually arm yourself with facts. If you want minimum wage raised, you need to know to WHAT level, HOW you're going to deal with intended and unintended consequences, WHAT percentage of job loss you would expect and WHY that is acceptable, WHAT you will do with the people who aren't worth employing and WHY that's acceptable and HOW you expect it to impact other businesses.

Otherwise you aren't going to get any support.... you aren't engendering any trust in your "plan" when you don't actually state one.
Abrignac Online
#221 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 3:46 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,358
victor809 wrote:
I don't know how I missed this before...


You and Mr. Klinger were busy mating.
victor809 Offline
#222 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 3:48 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
You and Mr. Klinger were busy mating.



I'm not mating with anyone with "klinger" in their name. That just sounds like they're unhygienic.
Brewha Offline
#223 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 8:12 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
victor809 wrote:
Brew... You missed, or intentionally skipped, the points again.
First, I'm not saying minimum wages will result in $1000 TVs. I'm not stupid enough to claim to know what the price would be. I'm saying that the govt setting a minimum wage on labor is the same as the govt setting a minimum price on TVs.
Second... I made salient points about the impact a minimum wage would have on education and labor pool. Points which are based on tested economic theory. You first ignored the points, along with my question on how you would deal with them... Now you're just calling it grandstanding. Why don't you try actually answering them?

A salient point? Australia as a minimum wage of $16.88 an hour. So by your reasoning their education system is on the brink of ruin. Or ruined already is that correct?

You didn't have a point. You didn't have a theory. You had conjecture.
And not very good conjecture at that. If raising the minimum wage has a deleterious effect to education why hasn't it happened somewhere? Or is your "tested economic theory" the same quality as trickle-down....
DrafterX Offline
#224 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 8:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Cool... we should just send all the poor people to Australia... that would fix alot of stuff... ThumpUp
Brewha Offline
#225 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 8:22 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
victor809 wrote:
I don't know how I missed this before...
I need to throw this out here because it pisses me off. Why do you think small businesses are a "small part" of the problem? You do realize that those EVIL BIG MEGA CORPORATIONS are not the main employers, right?

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/nov2009/sb20091112_157141.htm

from Business Week: "The Census data on the SBA Web site shows that, in 2006 (the latest year available), 50.2% of U.S. employment lies in businesses with fewer than 500 employees. But recently I began looking at data from payroll provider Automatic Data Processing (ADP), which uses payroll data to track U.S. employment. ADP's data shows that the share of U.S. employment in businesses with less than 500 employees is more than 30 percentage points higher. In 2006, the ADP data showed that 82.9% of U.S. employment was in businesses with less than 500 employees. "

So we're looking at between 50 and 80% of all employment in the US is NOT part of evil big corporations...

Listen Brew. I understand you just want to help people... your big heart just bleeds every time you see a crackhead sleeping barefoot on the sidewalk. But seriously, you can't possibly expect to be taken seriously when you don't actually arm yourself with facts. If you want minimum wage raised, you need to know to WHAT level, HOW you're going to deal with intended and unintended consequences, WHAT percentage of job loss you would expect and WHY that is acceptable, WHAT you will do with the people who aren't worth employing and WHY that's acceptable and HOW you expect it to impact other businesses.

Otherwise you aren't going to get any support.... you aren't engendering any trust in your "plan" when you don't actually state one.

So you're floating the idea that business with 500 employees are small business? And if these "small businesses" are in fact owned by a larger corporation they're still small business, yes?

Let me point out, that you have yet to defend your own particular misanthropic view of the economy. Which I expected by the way. Favor us with a tale of how doing away with minimum wage would benefit each and every one of us. And don't leave out the part about eating our young.

All I have said is give the suckers and even break and a decent raise. And all you have done is played chicken Little.

Let them do it to the little people, and sooner or later they will come for you too.....
Brewha Offline
#226 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 8:27 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
DrafterX wrote:
Cool... we should just send all the poor people to Australia... that would fix alot of stuff... ThumpUp

Can we send Victor first? He may not be poor but he is certainly morally bankrupt.

He could have a blooming onion.....
DrafterX Offline
#227 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 8:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
I could sure use a blooming onion about now... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#228 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 8:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Oooh, shrimp on the Barbie........

And a Fosters.
DrafterX Offline
#229 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 8:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
ThumpUp
Abrignac Online
#230 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 9:50 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,358
Brewha wrote:
A salient point? Australia as a minimum wage of $16.88 an hour. So by your reasoning their education system is on the brink of ruin. Or ruined already is that correct?

You didn't have a point. You didn't have a theory. You had conjecture.
And not very good conjecture at that. If raising the minimum wage has a deleterious effect to education why hasn't it happened somewhere? Or is your "tested economic theory" the same quality as trickle-down....


....and a much higher cost of living than the U.S.
tailgater Offline
#231 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 10:32 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
So you're floating the idea that business with 500 employees are small business? And if these "small businesses" are in fact owned by a larger corporation they're still small business, yes?

.


far be it for me to barge into this love fest, but that "500" number is the high extreme of the subject group.
Most businesses that fall into a category defined by limits (in this case 1 to 500) would fall in somewhere in the middle.
Bitter Klinger Offline
#232 Posted: Mon, May 19 2014, 11:41 PM EST
Joined: 03-23-2013
Posts: 877
Abrignac wrote:
You and Mr. Klinger were busy mating.


Aww, is someone getting jealous? I bet you're missing Mr. Scompay, Huh? LOL
victor809 Offline
#233 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 1:14 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
So you're floating the idea that business with 500 employees are small business? And if these "small businesses" are in fact owned by a larger corporation they're still small business, yes?

Let me point out, that you have yet to defend your own particular misanthropic view of the economy. Which I expected by the way. Favor us with a tale of how doing away with minimum wage would benefit each and every one of us. And don't leave out the part about eating our young.

All I have said is give the suckers and even break and a decent raise. And all you have done is played chicken Little.

Let them do it to the little people, and sooner or later they will come for you too.....


The Small Business Administration, which identifies a business as "small" or "Not small" by the government for the purposes of providing Small business loans, defines 500 people or less as a small business. Are you going to make up your own now? If you have a different definition you have to tell me what it is. It isn't my job to read your mind.

Further, I don't NEED to defend my "misanthropic view of the economy". I'm not trying to change the current law. I'm not trying to promote a bill to repeal the minimum wage law. If there were one out there, and I chose to support it, I would give you my reasons.

Your arguments are as poor as any of the tea partiers out there....
"I want to raise minimum wage!!!"
"What do you want to raise it to? How do you intend to deal with the consequences?"
"NO! You have to defend not raising it!"
victor809 Offline
#234 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 1:20 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
A salient point? Australia as a minimum wage of $16.88 an hour. So by your reasoning their education system is on the brink of ruin. Or ruined already is that correct?

You didn't have a point. You didn't have a theory. You had conjecture.
And not very good conjecture at that. If raising the minimum wage has a deleterious effect to education why hasn't it happened somewhere? Or is your "tested economic theory" the same quality as trickle-down....


A few things...
1- I never said the education system would be on the "brink of ruin". If you notice, I don't use these extreme terms. I even specifically stated to you that anyone who uses those extreme terms is lying to you. Yet you then try to state I'm using extreme terms. It's almost like you don't bother reading what I type.
2 - How do you know it hasn't had a deleterious effect on education elsewhere. Economics is tricky like that, since you don't know what number of people would have gotten a higher education if you did/or did not do what you plan.

The concept of a demand curve is well accepted. Are you trying to argue AGAINST the demand curve? Try looking it up first and get a grasp of what it states. It's not really something you can argue isn't going to happen. All you can argue is whether it's a steep or shallow curve. The fact that you don't understand it means that you really haven't thought this through.

And through it all, you STILL haven't stated what level you want to raise minimum wage to.
HockeyDad Offline
#235 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 6:13 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
DrafterX wrote:
Cool... we should just send all the poor people to Australia... that would fix alot of stuff... ThumpUp



I bet Brewha would be late for his flight.
DrafterX Offline
#236 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 7:53 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Qantas never crashed...... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#237 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HockeyDad wrote:
I bet Brewha would be late for his flight.


Probably just miffed that they wouldn't let him sit in first class with a coach ticket.
I'll defer to you for the elitist passenger outrage.
victor809 Offline
#238 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 12:00 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Probably just miffed that they wouldn't let him sit in first class with a coach ticket.
I'll defer to you for the elitist passenger outrage.





I think Brew wants ticket prices to be higher for rich people, or people who work for corporations. If you're the little guy, you get to pay coach prices for a first class ticket.

But he won't tell us what classifies a person as the "little guy".
gryphonms Offline
#239 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 12:54 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
Well, that does make sense if you think artificially inflating wages will have no effect on demand.
HockeyDad Offline
#240 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 12:58 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
victor809 wrote:
I think Brew wants ticket prices to be higher for rich people, or people who work for corporations. If you're the little guy, you get to pay coach prices for a first class ticket.

But he won't tell us what classifies a person as the "little guy".



I'm thinking he'll define the salary cutoff for "little guy" to be around $10 more than he makes a year.
Brewha Offline
#241 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:11 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
victor809 wrote:
The Small Business Administration, which identifies a business as "small" or "Not small" by the government for the purposes of providing Small business loans, defines 500 people or less as a small business. Are you going to make up your own now? If you have a different definition you have to tell me what it is. It isn't my job to read your mind.

Further, I don't NEED to defend my "misanthropic view of the economy". I'm not trying to change the current law. I'm not trying to promote a bill to repeal the minimum wage law. If there were one out there, and I chose to support it, I would give you my reasons.

Your arguments are as poor as any of the tea partiers out there....
"I want to raise minimum wage!!!"
"What do you want to raise it to? How do you intend to deal with the consequences?"
"NO! You have to defend not raising it!"



Good clarification on the definition of “small business”. One might get a mental image of poor Joe and his two hot dog stands struggling to make ends meet. Or Manny running his father’s butchers shop with his wife and son. But no – “small business” is most often an enterprise with around 350 people and revenue over $1m annually - also likely owned by a multi-national parent company.

So – “Minimum wage hurts small business” – what a line of crap.

So I say raise the US minimum wage to $10 hour just like Obama says.
He’s a smart boy (wow, that did not come out right!).

And Victor, you rationalizing these fictional consequences is entertain, maybe even plausible, but by no means demonstrated.


Now, here is what you should do:

Tell your lawmakers: It's Time to Give America a Raise

"What every American wants is a paycheck that lets them support their families, know a little economic security, pass down some hope and optimism to their kids. And that’s worth fighting for."
– President Obama

The federal minimum wage hasn't kept pace with the rising costs of basic necessities for working families, and today is worth even less than it was in the early 1980s. That means someone working full time for the federal minimum wage makes just $14,500 a year — which is below the poverty line for a family of four.

Raising the minimum wage nationwide would benefit 28 million workers across the country, and lift nearly a million people out of poverty. These aren’t just teenagers at their first job — the average age of workers who would benefit is 35 years old.

Despite support from 7 out of 10 Americans, lawmakers have failed to act.

But momentum is on our side. So far in 2014, five states and D.C. have enacted minimum wage increases, and many more states have legislation in motion to follow suit. We've seen state legislators from both sides of the aisle come together, because they know that putting more money in the pockets of working Americans means more spending at local businesses.

President Obama led by example, raising the wage for all federal contractors by executive order. We've also seen business owners raise wages for their employees, because they know that workers who feel valued are more productive and less likely to leave their jobs.

Higher wages are good for workers and business, and are key to a stronger economy that creates opportunity for all Americans.

What's needed now is a strong show of support from people across the country, to let our lawmakers know: It's time to give America a raise.



And try to stay out of the way of progress, would you?
victor809 Offline
#242 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:28 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
Good clarification on the definition of “small business”. One might get a mental image of poor Joe and his two hot dog stands struggling to make ends meet. Or Manny running his father’s butchers shop with his wife and son. But no – “small business” is most often an enterprise with around 350 people and revenue over $1m annually - also likely owned by a multi-national parent company.

So – “Minimum wage hurts small business” – what a line of crap.

So I say raise the US minimum wage to $10 hour just like Obama says.
He’s a smart boy (wow, that did not come out right!).

And Victor, you rationalizing these fictional consequences is entertain, maybe even plausible, but by no means demonstrated.


Now, here is what you should do:
etc....


Well, brew... if you're going to accept government set definitions of "poverty", then you kind of have to accept government set definitions of "small business"... otherwise I could just say "hey... that guy earning 14k a year is doing just fine... poverty is really only the people earning 3k a year".

As far as "minimum wage hurts small business"... I never stated that, it's someone else's argument. I think a minimum wage hurts all businesses, and the extent to which it hurts the business will depend more on the industry. Hell, MOST of the small businesses in america are sole proprietorships (not the 350 people companies you're thinking of) which don't have employees and won't be affected by minimum wage at all.

Ok... we've got a step forward. We at least know what you want to raise it to. Now, I just went out there into the internet and did a quick search and found this:
http://seacoast.careers.adicio.com/jobs/dover-main-street-program-manager-dover-new-hampshire-03820-64751565-d

This is a program manager job which pays $20-24k annually. That's $10-12 an hour. Do you see how many requirements it has? How are you going to convince someone to learn the necessary skills to do that job, when they will not even need to be able to read to earn $10/hr?
Brewha Offline
#243 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
OK – I will try to respond - sentence for sentence

victor809 wrote:
A few things...
1- I never said the education system would be on the "brink of ruin". If you notice, I don't use these extreme terms. I even specifically stated to you that anyone who uses those extreme terms is lying to you. Yet you then try to state I'm using extreme terms. It's almost like you don't bother reading what I type.

True, not really, now that’s just not true, no I was interpreting – like channeling but more florid, well you do have a point . . . .

victor809 wrote:
2 - How do you know it hasn't had a deleterious effect on education elsewhere. Economics is tricky like that, since you don't know what number of people would have gotten a higher education if you did/or did not do what you plan.

No no – the burden of proof would be on you – tricky is it not?


victor809 wrote:
The concept of a demand curve is well accepted. Are you trying to argue AGAINST the demand curve? Try looking it up first and get a grasp of what it states. It's not really something you can argue isn't going to happen. All you can argue is whether it's a steep or shallow curve. The fact that you don't understand it means that you really haven't thought this through.


Of course, no, now you’re being pedantic, that’s a double negative Victor, not flattening or tangentially acute? Honestly I feel I have already given it too much thought . . .
Brewha Offline
#244 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
I bet Brewha would be late for his flight.

You’re just jealous because I’ve been on a plane before.
Brewha Offline
#245 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:39 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
Probably just miffed that they wouldn't let him sit in first class with a coach ticket.
I'll defer to you for the elitist passenger outrage.



No, no – I’m a liberal* not an elitist.


*Liberals; Cbid’s most valued asset.
Brewha Offline
#246 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:42 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
gryphonms wrote:
Well, that does make sense if you think artificially inflating wages will have no effect on demand.

Not artificial – “all natural”
DrafterX Offline
#247 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Brewha wrote:
You’re just jealous because I’ve been on a plan before.


weight watchers..?? Huh
DrafterX Offline
#248 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 2:54 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Brewha wrote:
Good clarification on the definition of “small business”. One might get a mental image of poor Joe and his two hot dog stands struggling to make ends meet. Or Manny running his father’s butchers shop with his wife and son. But no – “small business” is most often an enterprise with around 350 people and revenue over $1m annually - also likely owned by a multi-national parent company.



I was actually thinking of Poor Joe... but Poor Joe being Poor Dale the store owner in my hood... He will lay-off half his employees if the $10 thing passes.. and prolly work more hours himself... wuld suck if he closed his doors.. I'd have to jump in my truck to go get beer & stuff... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#249 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 3:10 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
victor809 wrote:
Well, brew... if you're going to accept government set definitions of "poverty", then you kind of have to accept government set definitions of "small business"... otherwise I could just say "hey... that guy earning 14k a year is doing just fine... poverty is really only the people earning 3k a year".

As far as "minimum wage hurts small business"... I never stated that, it's someone else's argument. I think a minimum wage hurts all businesses, and the extent to which it hurts the business will depend more on the industry. Hell, MOST of the small businesses in america are sole proprietorships (not the 350 people companies you're thinking of) which don't have employees and won't be affected by minimum wage at all.

Ok... we've got a step forward. We at least know what you want to raise it to. Now, I just went out there into the internet and did a quick search and found this:
http://seacoast.careers.adicio.com/jobs/dover-main-street-program-manager-dover-new-hampshire-03820-64751565-d

This is a program manager job which pays $20-24k annually. That's $10-12 an hour. Do you see how many requirements it has? How are you going to convince someone to learn the necessary skills to do that job, when they will not even need to be able to read to earn $10/hr?

Dude, that is a part time job for a non-profit organization. Sounds like a damn fine apprenticeship to a good career path. Did you know that many people take low paying internships with companies to get their foot in to the business? One of the BSEE’s I work with started with us that way. When he was an intern, we paid him in butt kicks . . .
Brewha Offline
#250 Posted: Tue, May 20 2014, 3:11 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
DrafterX wrote:
weight watchers..?? Huh

yeah - it was a spell checking plane . . .
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages<1234567>
Back to Top