[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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?[/quote]
The New York Times is not liberal? This is how deluded you are.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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. [/quote]
It’s already been “debunked” that your “news source” doesn’t take handouts. I believe SexMachine did that research a while ago.
What and insult! I never would of expected that from you…
I have no idea why the two economist you mentioned declined to “debate” your “new source.” I doubt it’s because they’re afraid they’ve been “debunked.”
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
You missed the point, again.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Maybe in your opinion.
My opinion isn’t based on an ideology no matter how much you wish it was. It’s based on reality and I already explained why.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
Lol, whut??
Articles & studies have been posted that have reached the opposite conclusion your articles and studies have (see the Forbes article). I’ve given you a real life scenario I am living through involving the minimum wage increase in MD.
Why have you accepted the studies posted by your “sources?”
Answer: Because they fit your ideology.
It’s amazing how blind you are to your own hypocrisy.
Not sure if this had been posted yet.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Not sure if this had been posted yet.
[/quote]
I read the executive summary and agree that increases in minimum wage do not result in a loss of jobs b/c the company raises price of goods sold. This impacts the buying power of everyone (Joe the Electrician does not get a raise) and the buying power goes down. The new cost of goods also hits the increased pay check of Mr. Minimum Wage and their buying power is relatively unchanged as a function of discretionary income.
[quote]RJK wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Not sure if this had been posted yet.
[/quote]
I read the executive summary and agree that increases in minimum wage do not result in a loss of jobs b/c the company raises price of goods sold. This impacts the buying power of everyone (Joe the Electrician does not get a raise) and the buying power goes down. The new cost of goods also hits the increased pay check of Mr. Minimum Wage and their buying power is relatively unchanged as a function of discretionary income.[/quote]
A company cannot always raise the price of their goods to compensate. There are a number of other factors to consider.
[quote]RJK wrote:
I read the executive summary and agree that increases in minimum wage do not result in a loss of jobs b/c the company raises price of goods sold. This impacts the buying power of everyone (Joe the Electrician does not get a raise) and the buying power goes down. The new cost of goods also hits the increased pay check of Mr. Minimum Wage and their buying power is relatively unchanged as a function of discretionary income.[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa, are you trying to say that minimum wage increases serve no purpose other than buying votes? It almost looks like you’re trying to say that an increased mandatory minimum wage doesn’t increase the buying power of the poor.
You surely understand that a Wal-Mart greeter DESERVES more money; after all, he can’t support a family of nine with his income. The government then HAS to step in and support his family-that means YOUR taxes have to go up. So, as you can plainly see, HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE=LOWER TAXES=MORE MONEY IN EVERBODY’S POCKETS=MORE SPENDING=MORE MONEY FOR BUSINESS. Dumbass, selfish business owners are always biting off their(and the rest of the taxpayers’) noses to spite their(and the rest of the taxpayers’) faces.