Fast Food Strikes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why would someone hurt themselves economically?
[/quote]

You missed Nick’s point and it’s a good one. By creating an artificial floor (min wage) you are limiting the bargaining power of unskilled laborers. By this I mean (Nick meant) an unskilled laborer can’t undercut his competition by accepting less money up front. You see this as hurting himself economically. It isn’t if it allows him to get his foot in the door because #1 he’s earning a wage he, I assume, wasn’t before (unemployed) and #2 it allows him to work his way up beyond the minimum and hopefully to a good (whatever that is) wage. Point being he first needs the opportunity and you’ve limited how he can get it.[/quote]

There is no evidence he will increase his wage to a good one as productivity gains are not given to employees but rather consumed by those at the top. Plenty of studies to confirm this. So the potential employee has zero incentive to undercut his pay.[/quote]

You completely missed the point.

What is a good wage in your opinion?[/quote]

A fair wage is one that keeps up with productivity.

122

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

But you don’t go to where the evidence lies. You go to the fringe. That’s why your “source” is always some site like “da real newz” or “freakonomics”.[/quote]

So the studies I’ve referenced are nil because you say they are from the fringe? Where is your proof? Debunk the studies with proof not feelings.

Is your study acceptable because YOU think it falls within the mainstream? You sit within the narrowly defined parameters of debate. You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.[/quote]

Forbes is a left-wing publication. Even they acknowledge the reality of market forces. And I don’t “sit within the narrowly defined barriers of debate” - I’m way outside of them.

123

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is a good wage in your opinion?[/quote]

A fair wage is one that keeps up with productivity.[/quote]

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If someone can now do by pressing a button once what used to be done by three men and an hour’s worth of manual labor, should the button pusher be paid today’s equivalent of the total of what the three laborers used to make?

124

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

No you don’t.

125

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"…a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase…

[/quote]

Lol, who does this sound like>

"Stevenson argues that this consequence is a figment of the conservative imagination, citing �¢??many�¢?? studies which show a higher minimum wage has no impact on employment.

85% of research points to job lose:

“In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.”[/quote]

If what they say is true, why do the majority of the studies come to the opposite conclusions?[/quote]

The majority of the studies do not come to the opposite conclusion. Had you read the Forbes article you would know that.

I also already gave you a real life scenario that I’m involved in. I see you glossed over it. Probably because it hasn’t been blogged about on some off the wall website.

126

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I shall go for the weight of the evidence as I could make an educated guess that they made some errors in their study like Reinhart and Rogoff the 2 Harvard economists who are responsible for shaping public policy in regards to austerity. When their errors were pointed out and they have yet to an accept a debate offered to them by the Real News I’m left to assume they are wrong and they know it.
[/quote]

You think because two people haven’t accepted a debate challenge from a hole in the wall new source that they are wrong and they know it? That’s absurd.

127

“The Real Newz” is not considered a source…

128

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

But you don’t go to where the evidence lies. You go to the fringe. That’s why your “source” is always some site like “da real newz” or “freakonomics”.[/quote]

So the studies I’ve referenced are nil because you say they are from the fringe? Where is your proof? Debunk the studies with proof not feelings.

Is your study acceptable because YOU think it falls within the mainstream? You sit within the narrowly defined parameters of debate. You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.[/quote]

Studies =/= reality. They’re a point of reference to further thought and analysis.

129

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is a good wage in your opinion?[/quote]

A fair wage is one that keeps up with productivity.[/quote]

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If someone can now do by pressing a button once what used to be done by three men and an hour’s worth of manual labor, should the button pusher be paid today’s equivalent of the total of what the three laborers used to make?[/quote]

This should be interesting…

I could argue in this scenario the button pusher should very well make less; although, it is very likely the button pusher now has other responsibilities that would increase the value he provides (maybe).

130

Even the liberal NYT admits there will be a job loss in this article even as they tout its benefits! Ha!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/02/18/the-impact-of-a-minimum-wage-increase/

131

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.[/quote]

Lol if you think you haven’t been indoctrinated by a propaganda system.

132

He’s educated beyond his intelligence.

133

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I shall go for the weight of the evidence as I could make an educated guess that they made some errors in their study like Reinhart and Rogoff the 2 Harvard economists who are responsible for shaping public policy in regards to austerity. When their errors were pointed out and they have yet to an accept a debate offered to them by the Real News I’m left to assume they are wrong and they know it.
[/quote]

You think because two people haven’t accepted a debate challenge from a hole in the wall new source that they are wrong and they know it? That’s absurd. [/quote]

They have refused to accept a debate from the very people who debunked their study. If they are right then why don’t they defend it? It is only “a hole in the wall news source” to a dolt like you. How dare a news source not take advertising money from corporations and government hand-outs! Must be a lefty news source who takes the majority of their contributions from main street.

134

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Even the liberal NYT admits there will be a job loss in this article even as they tout its benefits! Ha!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/02/18/the-impact-of-a-minimum-wage-increase/

[/quote]
You only think the NYT is liberal because the corporate press told you. You believe the propaganda. Who owns the NYT?

135

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.[/quote]

Lol if you think you haven’t been indoctrinated by a propaganda system.

[/quote]
I’m not saying I’ve completely escaped it but I can recognize it more clearly now.

136

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is a good wage in your opinion?[/quote]

A fair wage is one that keeps up with productivity.[/quote]

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If someone can now do by pressing a button once what used to be done by three men and an hour’s worth of manual labor, should the button pusher be paid today’s equivalent of the total of what the three laborers used to make?[/quote]

This should be interesting…

I could argue in this scenario the button pusher should very well make less; although, it is very likely the button pusher now has other responsibilities that would increase the value he provides (maybe). [/quote]

Even if you accept that 50% of the productivity gains were made by technology the workers wage would still be higher than it is today, as wages have been stagnant or have declined in the last few decades.

137

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

But you don’t go to where the evidence lies. You go to the fringe. That’s why your “source” is always some site like “da real newz” or “freakonomics”.[/quote]

So the studies I’ve referenced are nil because you say they are from the fringe? Where is your proof? Debunk the studies with proof not feelings.

Is your study acceptable because YOU think it falls within the mainstream? You sit within the narrowly defined parameters of debate. You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.[/quote]

Studies =/= reality. They’re a point of reference to further thought and analysis. [/quote]
And they are more valid than ideology.

138

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

No you don’t. [/quote]

How about proofing up instead of making accusations?

139

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

But you don’t go to where the evidence lies. You go to the fringe. That’s why your “source” is always some site like “da real newz” or “freakonomics”.[/quote]

So the studies I’ve referenced are nil because you say they are from the fringe? Where is your proof? Debunk the studies with proof not feelings.

Is your study acceptable because YOU think it falls within the mainstream? You sit within the narrowly defined parameters of debate. You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.[/quote]

Forbes is a left-wing publication. Even they acknowledge the reality of market forces. And I don’t “sit within the narrowly defined barriers of debate” - I’m way outside of them.
[/quote]
Yeah, Forbes is a left-wing publication. With Steve Forbes as it’s Editor-in-chief. This is how deluded you are…

140

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

But you don’t go to where the evidence lies. You go to the fringe. That’s why your “source” is always some site like “da real newz” or “freakonomics”.[/quote]

So the studies I’ve referenced are nil because you say they are from the fringe? Where is your proof? Debunk the studies with proof not feelings.

Is your study acceptable because YOU think it falls within the mainstream? You sit within the narrowly defined parameters of debate. You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.[/quote]

Forbes is a left-wing publication. Even they acknowledge the reality of market forces. And I don’t “sit within the narrowly defined barriers of debate” - I’m way outside of them.
[/quote]
Yeah, Forbes is a left-wing publication. With Steve Forbes as it’s Editor-in-chief. This is how deluded you are…[/quote]

"Iâ??ve noticed, but not commented on, how the only time I go to Forbes.com anymore is to read a liberal attack on conservatives.

Iâ??ve wondered, has Forbes changed? Yes it has.

What happened to Forbes? Two words: Lewis Dvorkin."

Forbes is a case study of how conservatives lose institutions: