Hillary Losing to Sanders In Latest NH Poll

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
now what the hell are you bitching about?

[/quote]

Your assertion was that the wealthy got that way by under paying employees.

I pointed out that I could provide countless number of examples of wealthy people with well paid employees. (Any law firm or CPA firm for example. Costco.)

To which your response was some non-sense about the job market as a whole, which is irrelevant to the assertion you made, nor my response. [/quote]

it was not an assertion , it was a statement , I said , basically “that those wealthy have become that way on the back of cheap labor” , and then you told me basically " you have friends that have created plenty of high paying jobs" and I said " yaeh that is America’s problem , too many high paying jobs " then you accused me of changing subjects , eye roll
[/quote]

let’s match job for job of jobs created that pay extremely well and those that exploit cheap labor , and let’s bet who runs out of jobs first
[/quote]

I think you’re looking at all wrong and are failing to consider the alternative. You’re placing a predetermined notion on what is a good job vs. a bad job but not considering that both are far superior to the alternative which is no job. Not to mention, after necessary expenditures, personal choice comes into play more so than anything else regarding standard of living. I think this is the inherent flaw in a lot of your arguments.

This task of counting “high paying jobs” vs " low paying jobs" is based on a nominal amount and not purchasing power associated with the different price levels of goods in different areas where one might find either a “high paying job” vs a “low paying job” as well. It’s a pretty futile exercise basically because that’s not how money works. You have to adjust for parity across the spectrum or else you’re just pissing in the wind. For instance, I live in a part of Massachusetts where a 2000sq ft home costs around $330,000. If I travel closer to Boston, that same home’s market value will increase by AT LEAST 25%. And that’s a low estimate tbh. But if I were to take that same home, and put it in Winston-Salem, NC, it’d probably have a market value of 25% less.

So again, low paying jobs vs high paying jobs is futile and irrelevant BECAUSE of how markets works and how money works. Something I think you’re overlooking. I think you’re applying a nominal wage to how it would equate to your immediate area. You’re applying that wage to the prices of goods in your area, and probably to the stores whose prices you’re familiar with. This is one of the inherent flaws and inconsistencies with how the PPI and CPI are calculated as it doesn’t account for substitution effect of alternative goods.

142

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
now what the hell are you bitching about?

[/quote]

Your assertion was that the wealthy got that way by under paying employees.

I pointed out that I could provide countless number of examples of wealthy people with well paid employees. (Any law firm or CPA firm for example. Costco.)

To which your response was some non-sense about the job market as a whole, which is irrelevant to the assertion you made, nor my response. [/quote]

it was not an assertion , it was a statement , I said , basically “that those wealthy have become that way on the back of cheap labor” , and then you told me basically " you have friends that have created plenty of high paying jobs" and I said " yaeh that is America’s problem , too many high paying jobs " then you accused me of changing subjects , eye roll
[/quote]

let’s match job for job of jobs created that pay extremely well and those that exploit cheap labor , and let’s bet who runs out of jobs first
[/quote]

I think you’re looking at all wrong and are failing to consider the alternative. You’re placing a predetermined notion on what is a good job vs. a bad job but not considering that both are far superior to the alternative which is no job. Not to mention, after necessary expenditures, personal choice comes into play more so than anything else regarding standard of living. I think this is the inherent flaw in a lot of your arguments.

This task of counting “high paying jobs” vs " low paying jobs" is based on a nominal amount and not purchasing power associated with the different price levels of goods in different areas where one might find either a “high paying job” vs a “low paying job” as well. It’s a pretty futile exercise basically because that’s not how money works. You have to adjust for parity across the spectrum or else you’re just pissing in the wind. For instance, I live in a part of Massachusetts where a 2000sq ft home costs around $330,000. If I travel closer to Boston, that same home’s market value will increase by AT LEAST 25%. And that’s a low estimate tbh. But if I were to take that same home, and put it in Winston-Salem, NC, it’d probably have a market value of 25% less.

So again, low paying jobs vs high paying jobs is futile and irrelevant BECAUSE of how markets works and how money works. Something I think you’re overlooking. I think you’re applying a nominal wage to how it would equate to your immediate area. You’re applying that wage to the prices of goods in your area, and probably to the stores whose prices you’re familiar with. This is one of the inherent flaws and inconsistencies with how the PPI and CPI are calculated as it doesn’t account for substitution effect of alternative goods.[/quote]

well we disagree again:)

(1)In my opinion a good job is not only good for the employer because (He can expand the production of his product)

(2) It is good for the employee (He and his family can live above poverty with out assistance from other tax payers)

(3) It is good for other tax payers ( because it cuts down on need for social welfare and broadens the tax base by introducing more tax paying citizens)

Of course if you make all jobs pay a livable wage , prices will go up but it goes up any time a commodity’s price increases .

Again one way BIG BUSINESS rules over it’s minions is to never let that employee make enough so it can compete . It is a pretty simple anti compete clause (it takes money to make money)

143

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
now what the hell are you bitching about?

[/quote]

Your assertion was that the wealthy got that way by under paying employees.

I pointed out that I could provide countless number of examples of wealthy people with well paid employees. (Any law firm or CPA firm for example. Costco.)

To which your response was some non-sense about the job market as a whole, which is irrelevant to the assertion you made, nor my response. [/quote]

it was not an assertion , it was a statement , I said , basically “that those wealthy have become that way on the back of cheap labor” , and then you told me basically " you have friends that have created plenty of high paying jobs" and I said " yaeh that is America’s problem , too many high paying jobs " then you accused me of changing subjects , eye roll
[/quote]

let’s match job for job of jobs created that pay extremely well and those that exploit cheap labor , and let’s bet who runs out of jobs first
[/quote]

I think you’re looking at all wrong and are failing to consider the alternative. You’re placing a predetermined notion on what is a good job vs. a bad job but not considering that both are far superior to the alternative which is no job. Not to mention, after necessary expenditures, personal choice comes into play more so than anything else regarding standard of living. I think this is the inherent flaw in a lot of your arguments.

This task of counting “high paying jobs” vs " low paying jobs" is based on a nominal amount and not purchasing power associated with the different price levels of goods in different areas where one might find either a “high paying job” vs a “low paying job” as well. It’s a pretty futile exercise basically because that’s not how money works. You have to adjust for parity across the spectrum or else you’re just pissing in the wind. For instance, I live in a part of Massachusetts where a 2000sq ft home costs around $330,000. If I travel closer to Boston, that same home’s market value will increase by AT LEAST 25%. And that’s a low estimate tbh. But if I were to take that same home, and put it in Winston-Salem, NC, it’d probably have a market value of 25% less.

So again, low paying jobs vs high paying jobs is futile and irrelevant BECAUSE of how markets works and how money works. Something I think you’re overlooking. I think you’re applying a nominal wage to how it would equate to your immediate area. You’re applying that wage to the prices of goods in your area, and probably to the stores whose prices you’re familiar with. This is one of the inherent flaws and inconsistencies with how the PPI and CPI are calculated as it doesn’t account for substitution effect of alternative goods.[/quote]

well we disagree again:)

(1)In my opinion a good job is not only good for the employer because (He can expand the production of his product)

(2) It is good for the employee (He and his family can live above poverty with out assistance from other tax payers)

(3) It is good for other tax payers ( because it cuts down on need for social welfare and broadens the tax base by introducing more tax paying citizens)

Of course if you make all jobs pay a livable wage , prices will go up but it goes up any time a commodity’s price increases .

Again one way BIG BUSINESS rules over it’s minions is to never let that employee make enough so it can compete . It is a pretty simple anti compete clause (it takes money to make money)
[/quote]

I don’t even think you read what I wrote at all. But ok. I’m just going to address your last little paragraph because I doubt you’ll even read this. It seems you’re under the assumption that the “minions” do not have economic mobility or the ability for lateral movement in the labor market. I.E. “big business” isn’t the only employer. Anecdote: In one year, due to lateral movement, I effectively raised my wage by 48% with only marginal improvement to my human capital

People HAVE the power to negotiate wages as they are, in essence, selling their labor on the open market. It’s why wages fluctuate. PLUS, you seem to assume that the labor market is static 
 not the case. You seem to be arguing a snapshot of the economy. Again, I am not because that’s just not how it works. Big business is not the only buyer of labor.

144

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
well we disagree again:)

(1)In my opinion a good job is not only good for the employer because (He can expand the production of his product)[/quote]

Any job is not only good for the employer specifically because the alternative, the absence of the opportunity, i.e. no job, is always going to be better than said job both for the employer, the employee, and society given that there is a demand for the goods or services produced.

[quote]
(2) It is good for the employee (He and his family can live above poverty with out assistance from other tax payers)[/quote]

see above. Plus you’re assuming, in this statement, which I’m sure isn’t intentional, that all employees have a family to support. Over time, most likely the case, but not when they’re starting out (especially since the trend among the younger generation ust entering the workforce is to delay marriage and having kids). Most low(er) paying jobs occur in a workers life when they’re young and have little and less familial obligations and responsibilities. One of the major consequences to raising the minimum wage is it effectively prices out those young, inexperienced workers from obtaining those low(er) wage jobs from which they WILL get experience thus making the future work force that much weaker. They now are more attractive to those fresh out of college OR have already established experience but are job seeking.

[quote]
(3) It is good for other tax payers ( because it cuts down on need for social welfare and broadens the tax base by introducing more tax paying citizens)[/quote]

You’re assuming here that policy makers will lower taxes given your caveats. A new tax payer and/or less of a welfare tax burden does not equate to lower taxes, more taxes returned or a combination of the 2. It just means, much to many tax payers frustration, more government which is a detriment to liberty and the economy as a whole.

[quote]
Of course if you make all jobs pay a livable wage , prices will go up but it goes up any time a commodity’s price increases .[/quote]

again, that’s not the way wages work. At least efficient, logical wages. No one person “makes” a natural wage. It’s dictated by market conditions (labor pool, human capital, demand, supply, technology, etc. etc.) not by what some politician says a wage ought to be. That’s irrelevant and ignores local market conditions. Any time policy dictates a price floor (i.e. minimum wage), it creates dead loss (shortages). It NEVER creates a surplus. Ever.

In this case we’re talking about jobs. Specifically low(er) paying jobs. When a wage is set by policy, it ONLY benefits those already filling those positions. It essentially takes away entry level jobs from the economy thus decreasing the chance an inexperienced job seeker (who primarily are high school kids and not family people) has of obtaining employment (see my brief write up above for job market competition).

Briefly, your use of low paying jobs and high paying jobs, which I believe I addressed earlier but was ignored, is subjective. There can only be one with the other and only in comparison. I.E. in relation to another job. Plus, they NEED to be comparable as jobs are diverse and require, literally, every skill acquired by man in some combination thereof. When attempting to compare jobs of varying wages, they must be controlled for skills required, which is what are being bought and sold. You can’t say a real estate agent job is better than a steel worker’s job because they require a set of skills specific to those jobs which are priced differently in the market and subject to the market conditions of any particular area.

TL;DR you’re comparing apples to oranges and there are way more variables that are significant to this conversation that you oh so conveniently ignore. :slight_smile:

145

Who would work for less than a “living wage?” “Yes, sir, I’m going to work today for a wage that will not allow me to provide for myself.” “I’m going to burn calories for a wage that will not allow me to replace them.” It doesn’t really seem likely


146

[quote]polo77j wrote:
In one year, due to lateral movement, I effectively raised my wage by 48% with only marginal improvement to my human capital
[/quote]

anecdotal:)

147

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
well we disagree again:)

(1)In my opinion a good job is not only good for the employer because (He can expand the production of his product)[/quote]

Any job is not only good for the employer specifically because the alternative, the absence of the opportunity, i.e. no job, is always going to be better than said job both for the employer, the employee, and society given that there is a demand for the goods or services produced.

[quote]

We dis agree again a minimum wage job for a mother of three could easily be replaced by public assistance . No need for Child care , no need for a car

148

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Most low(er) paying jobs occur in a workers life when they’re young and have little and less familial obligations and responsibilities.)[/quote]

again we dis agree , what you say is probably true in an upwardly mobile young person but the average minimum wage worker has no education and little ambition.

149

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When attempting to compare jobs of varying wages, they must be controlled for skills required, [/quote]

I think it is this point because you stated it 2 or 3 times is what I disagree with .

I am not comparing any jobs of skill , I am looking specifically at minimum wage jobs , you know the ones that I have to subsidize with my tax dollar .And the one’s that if they could afford to pay taxes would minimize my tax bill

150

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Most low(er) paying jobs occur in a workers life when they’re young and have little and less familial obligations and responsibilities.)[/quote]

again we dis agree , what you say is probably true in an upwardly mobile young person but the average minimum wage worker has no education and little ambition.
[/quote]

Do you have any data to back up the assertion that “the average minimum wage worker has no education and little ambition”? Can you elaborate exactly what you mean by “no education”? How can you be certain that the average min. wage worker has little ambition? Also, I thought we were discussing low wage jobs v. high wage jobs? I’m curious to know EXACTLY what it is you’re talking about, what age group, demos etc etc since you seem to not be consistent with what exactly you’re arguing.

When did the subject change to min. wage workers? I’m curious if you can come up with any real statistics that help us understand where the problem lies and what exactly you’re arguing? What age is the average minimum age worker (since, apparently we’re not talking about minimum wage)? What’s the median age of the “min. wage worker” and I’d also like to know the mode. Is the dispersion skewed toward an older demo or younger? Also, in what area since “minimum wage” is a nominal number which changes from area to area and (at least now a days) has a widely diverse range? Please, come up with these numbers so we can actually discuss something of substance and maybe get a clear understanding of the issue since it seems we’re discussing separate issues.

151

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When attempting to compare jobs of varying wages, they must be controlled for skills required, [/quote]

I think it is this point because you stated it 2 or 3 times is what I disagree with .

I am not comparing any jobs of skill , I am looking specifically at minimum wage jobs , you know the ones that I have to subsidize with my tax dollar .And the one’s that if they could afford to pay taxes would minimize my tax bill

[/quote]

The average income for a college graduate (according to a quick Google search) is $45K. That’s roughly $22/hours. The average income, according the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, for a person with a high school diploma is $638 a week, which is about $16/hour (6384.312/2000). Also according to the BLS only 3.9% of hourly workers make the minimum wage or lower (this includes folks, like waitress, that gets tips that aren’t counted and can easily make more than the minimum).

The entire minimum wage topic is ludicrous. It’s a non-issue.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

152

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When attempting to compare jobs of varying wages, they must be controlled for skills required, [/quote]

I think it is this point because you stated it 2 or 3 times is what I disagree with .

I am not comparing any jobs of skill , I am looking specifically at minimum wage jobs , you know the ones that I have to subsidize with my tax dollar .And the one’s that if they could afford to pay taxes would minimize my tax bill

[/quote]

you specifically stated lower paying jobs to high paying jobs 
 those were literally your words. See my comments above. If you come up with numbers, I’ll do the same and we’ll compare. You can’t have a reasonable discussion without first establishing something tangible for which to discuss.

Why do you think you’re subsidizing minimum wage jobs with your tax bill? These are price floors set by policy that must be met by private companies. What makes you think that your tax dollars are subsidizing these wages? Or do you mean subsidizing the workers through transfer payments?

What percentage of minimum wage workers (they have to be legitimate minimum wage workers, i.e. they are literally paid minimum wage not some bullshit semantic “below the poverty line” argument you might try to use and say THAT’S what you were arguing the whole time. That’s crap) do you think receive public assistance? Can you find any numbers to back that up? Link?

Here’s another mental exercise 
 at what volume of welfare recipients would need to cease collecting for your tax bill to be lowered?

Also, what do you consider to be a livable wage (nominal)? Why?

153

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When attempting to compare jobs of varying wages, they must be controlled for skills required, [/quote]

I think it is this point because you stated it 2 or 3 times is what I disagree with .

I am not comparing any jobs of skill , I am looking specifically at minimum wage jobs , you know the ones that I have to subsidize with my tax dollar .And the one’s that if they could afford to pay taxes would minimize my tax bill

[/quote]

The average income for a college graduate (according to a quick Google search) is $45K. That’s roughly $22/hours. The average income, according the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, for a person with a high school diploma is $638 a week, which is about $16/hour (6384.312/2000). Also according to the BLS only 3.9% of hourly workers make the minimum wage or lower (this includes folks, like waitress, that gets tips that aren’t counted and can easily make more than the minimum).

The entire minimum wage topic is ludicrous. It’s a non-issue.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
[/quote]

so you are saying it is ludicrous because raising the minimum wage would do no one good ?

154

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When attempting to compare jobs of varying wages, they must be controlled for skills required, [/quote]

I think it is this point because you stated it 2 or 3 times is what I disagree with .

I am not comparing any jobs of skill , I am looking specifically at minimum wage jobs , you know the ones that I have to subsidize with my tax dollar .And the one’s that if they could afford to pay taxes would minimize my tax bill

[/quote]

The average income for a college graduate (according to a quick Google search) is $45K. That’s roughly $22/hours. The average income, according the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, for a person with a high school diploma is $638 a week, which is about $16/hour (6384.312/2000). Also according to the BLS only 3.9% of hourly workers make the minimum wage or lower (this includes folks, like waitress, that gets tips that aren’t counted and can easily make more than the minimum).

The entire minimum wage topic is ludicrous. It’s a non-issue.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
[/quote]

so you are saying it is ludicrous because raising the minimum wage would do no one good ?
[/quote]

It would do more harm than good.

155

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Most low(er) paying jobs occur in a workers life when they’re young and have little and less familial obligations and responsibilities.)[/quote]

again we dis agree , what you say is probably true in an upwardly mobile young person but the average minimum wage worker has no education and little ambition.
[/quote]

no , but I am sure if I had the time I could find it . I personally feel that you must be out of touch with reality . When was the last time you were in a large poor community ? When was the last time you were in a Walmart or McDonalds in a poor community ?

I kind of had this discussion a while back where all the members on this board did not think America has a HUGE homeless problem . I think it all happens in the end of town you DO NOT live in

Do you have any data to back up the assertion that “the average minimum wage worker has no education and little ambition”? Can you elaborate exactly what you mean by “no education”? How can you be certain that the average min. wage worker has little ambition? Also, I thought we were discussing low wage jobs v. high wage jobs? I’m curious to know EXACTLY what it is you’re talking about, what age group, demos etc etc since you seem to not be consistent with what exactly you’re arguing.

When did the subject change to min. wage workers? I’m curious if you can come up with any real statistics that help us understand where the problem lies and what exactly you’re arguing? What age is the average minimum age worker (since, apparently we’re not talking about minimum wage)? What’s the median age of the “min. wage worker” and I’d also like to know the mode. Is the dispersion skewed toward an older demo or younger? Also, in what area since “minimum wage” is a nominal number which changes from area to area and (at least now a days) has a widely diverse range? Please, come up with these numbers so we can actually discuss something of substance and maybe get a clear understanding of the issue since it seems we’re discussing separate issues.[/quote]

156

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When did the subject change to min. wage workers? [/quote]

I thought we were talking about a livable wage

157

[quote]polo77j wrote:
I’m curious if you can come up with any real statistics that help us understand where the problem lies and what exactly you’re arguing?[/quote]

No I doubt it “there are lies damned lies and statistics”

158

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When did the subject change to min. wage workers? [/quote]

I thought we were talking about a livable wage
[/quote]

What’s the definition of a livable wage?

159

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Most low(er) paying jobs occur in a workers life when they’re young and have little and less familial obligations and responsibilities.)[/quote]

again we dis agree , what you say is probably true in an upwardly mobile young person but the average minimum wage worker has no education and little ambition.
[/quote]

no , but I am sure if I had the time I could find it . I personally feel that you must be out of touch with reality . When was the last time you were in a large poor community ? When was the last time you were in a Walmart or McDonalds in a poor community ?

I kind of had this discussion a while back where all the members on this board did not think America has a HUGE homeless problem . I think it all happens in the end of town you DO NOT live in

Do you have any data to back up the assertion that “the average minimum wage worker has no education and little ambition”? Can you elaborate exactly what you mean by “no education”? How can you be certain that the average min. wage worker has little ambition? Also, I thought we were discussing low wage jobs v. high wage jobs? I’m curious to know EXACTLY what it is you’re talking about, what age group, demos etc etc since you seem to not be consistent with what exactly you’re arguing.

When did the subject change to min. wage workers? I’m curious if you can come up with any real statistics that help us understand where the problem lies and what exactly you’re arguing? What age is the average minimum age worker (since, apparently we’re not talking about minimum wage)? What’s the median age of the “min. wage worker” and I’d also like to know the mode. Is the dispersion skewed toward an older demo or younger? Also, in what area since “minimum wage” is a nominal number which changes from area to area and (at least now a days) has a widely diverse range? Please, come up with these numbers so we can actually discuss something of substance and maybe get a clear understanding of the issue since it seems we’re discussing separate issues.[/quote]
[/quote]

The area in which I live is a depressed area (median household income is about $37,000). I see poverty everyday. But we’re not talking about my general area which makes up barely 1% of my state’s population never mind the whole country (read, where I live and what I see is irrelevant to the discussion we’re having).

We’re discussing an overarching social issue not some bullshit you see at Walmart. You suffer from the availability heuristic, what you see is all there is. You may see something of prevalence in your community or a specific store or among a specific demo, observe its prevalence, but it does not necessarily equate to the overall population. You’re perception is skewed due to clustering of available data around a specific variable. YOU can’t possibly have a clear understanding of the issue if you’re not willing to do some outside research on the subject.

Just giving something the ole eye ball test does not make you well informed, and it makes YOU seem out of touch and ill-informed. It’s been real bud, maybe we can do this again :slight_smile:

160

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

When did the subject change to min. wage workers? [/quote]

I thought we were talking about a livable wage
[/quote]

What’s the definition of a livable wage? [/quote]

a wage you can live on to our standard with out other assistance