All the “studies” posted by OP…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
She is saying that the recent studies of the past decade do not support the argument that if you raise minimum wage that the economy has a net loss in jobs and hurts employers. To the contrary any increase in business cost is made up by increased revenues. A concept that is lost on neo-conservative economics. And in fact very rarely discussed.[/quote]
That is idiotic, and here is why-
I eat at McDonalds a couple of times a year. Lets say they raise the minimum wage to $12.00/hour.
That doesn’t mean that I am going to eat there more often.
Quite the contrary. I wouldn’t pay a dime more for that crap than I have to. They will not increase revenue and they will loose the $4.75/hour that they were paying the same person for the same work the day before.
[/quote]
Too bad for your argument the exact opposite is what happens…
[/quote]
Too bad blah de blah de bhah!
You sound like a nine year old.
[/quote]
Maybe you think I sound immature, but here you are denying the outcome of the studies with your learned credentials. Who is the child?
[/quote]
Not denying the outcome of the studies, which have yet to be seen. I’m disagreeing with her statement on her interpretation of them, which is what was presented.
Big difference, right?
Now if a company were to state rising wages as a factor for increasing price, then increase price above the cost of the wage increase, I would understand- but that hasn’t been stated as a reason as to why increased wages may bolster a companies bottom line.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
ah yes lieawatha herself Liz Warren she talk about how she teaches one class at Harvard, as their first woman of color, to tune of $300000.00 a semester? I’m with those who feel minimum wage shouldn’t be the desired wage for an adult[/quote]
Is this the lady who claimed to be a Native American when she applied to Harvard ?[/quote]
I was blond haired (ACTUALLY WHITE) now (GREY) blue eyed and my grand mother was quarter Indian
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m curious if anyone watched or read the recap on the link? Her argument seemed pretty solid at first glance and without seeing the research. I’m interested to hear what the more economically savy have to say about it. [/quote]
If this is the moronic statement of her’s I think it is, all you have to do is look at the use of the computer, internet and fucking fax machine to poke about 236,898 holes in her stupid ass statements.
Her MO:
Say shit low information voters will love because they don’t think, they feel. And pay Union thugs to hold my signs and be my ground game. [/quote]
Yeah it has nothing to do with the research.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
She is saying that the recent studies of the past decade do not support the argument that if you raise minimum wage that the economy has a net loss in jobs and hurts employers. To the contrary any increase in business cost is made up by increased revenues. A concept that is lost on neo-conservative economics. And in fact very rarely discussed.[/quote]
That is idiotic, and here is why-
I eat at McDonalds a couple of times a year. Lets say they raise the minimum wage to $12.00/hour.
That doesn’t mean that I am going to eat there more often.
Quite the contrary. I wouldn’t pay a dime more for that crap than I have to. They will not increase revenue and they will loose the $4.75/hour that they were paying the same person for the same work the day before.
[/quote]
This is why I wanted to see the research. She was acting like the dollar menu burger was gonna be $1.02 if we increase minimum wage. I agree with you, intuitively I just don’t see it.[/quote]
Contact the PERI Institute for the research papers.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
She is saying that the recent studies of the past decade do not support the argument that if you raise minimum wage that the economy has a net loss in jobs and hurts employers. To the contrary any increase in business cost is made up by increased revenues. A concept that is lost on neo-conservative economics. And in fact very rarely discussed.[/quote]
That is idiotic, and here is why-
I eat at McDonalds a couple of times a year. Lets say they raise the minimum wage to $12.00/hour.
That doesn’t mean that I am going to eat there more often.
Quite the contrary. I wouldn’t pay a dime more for that crap than I have to. They will not increase revenue and they will loose the $4.75/hour that they were paying the same person for the same work the day before.
[/quote]
Too bad for your argument the exact opposite is what happens…
[/quote]
Too bad blah de blah de bhah!
You sound like a nine year old.
[/quote]
Maybe you think I sound immature, but here you are denying the outcome of the studies with your learned credentials. Who is the child?
[/quote]
Not denying the outcome of the studies, which have yet to be seen. I’m disagreeing with her statement on her interpretation of them, which is what was presented.
Big difference, right?
Now if a company were to state rising wages as a factor for increasing price, then increase price above the cost of the wage increase, I would understand- but that hasn’t been stated as a reason as to why increased wages may bolster a companies bottom line.
[/quote]
The reason a companies bottom line can improve is an increase in demand. When the middle class have more disposable income they generally spend most of it. Which in turn creates demand and further spurs on the economy. There is no reason for someone to open up a new business if people do not have the money to purchase the product or service- no matter what the tax code says…
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
ah yes lieawatha herself Liz Warren she talk about how she teaches one class at Harvard, as their first woman of color, to tune of $300000.00 a semester? I’m with those who feel minimum wage shouldn’t be the desired wage for an adult[/quote]
Concentrate on Senator Warren because you don’t like her. Mention something that has relatively little to do with the post instead of agreeing or denying the information. Really?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
She is saying that the recent studies of the past decade do not support the argument that if you raise minimum wage that the economy has a net loss in jobs and hurts employers. To the contrary any increase in business cost is made up by increased revenues. A concept that is lost on neo-conservative economics. And in fact very rarely discussed.[/quote]
That is idiotic, and here is why-
I eat at McDonalds a couple of times a year. Lets say they raise the minimum wage to $12.00/hour.
That doesn’t mean that I am going to eat there more often.
Quite the contrary. I wouldn’t pay a dime more for that crap than I have to. They will not increase revenue and they will loose the $4.75/hour that they were paying the same person for the same work the day before.
[/quote]
Too bad for your argument the exact opposite is what happens…
[/quote]
Zeppelin, shhh…If you tell business owners they can raise prices without losing business, then we’ll have to pay more for everything! Keep that on the down low, man. Silly business owners are offering all their products at sale prices and don’t even know it. LMAO at them.[/quote]
Not the point of the post.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[/quote]
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
The job market is also a free market. Don’t like how you’re being treated? Don’t like the price you’re getting for your product (work)?
Find a new consumer of your goods. It isn’t always easy, but but if you assume the role of victim of corporate greed, then expect someone else to solve it for you, you have become the least influential vector in your own direction.
Believe me. I’ve just gotten done trying to meet a production schedule that can’t be met to support a family that I never get to see.
Out go the resumes, in come the interviews.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
The job market is also a free market. Don’t like how you’re being treated? Don’t like the price you’re getting for your product (work)?
Find a new consumer of your goods. It isn’t always easy, but but if you assume the role of victim of corporate greed, then expect someone else to solve it for you, you have become the least influential vector in your own direction.
Believe me. I’ve just gotten done trying to meet a production schedule that can’t be met to support a family that I never get to see.
Out go the resumes, in come the interviews.
[/quote]
Oligopolies and monopolies do not give you a choice.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[/quote]
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…[/quote]
Financial sector corporations helped create a bubble by deregulating it’s sector. It became predatory. This in turn caused the real estate bubble to grow and eventually burst leaving everyday ordinary people to pick up the tab.
So banking can be made into a public utility. The private bankers get almost free money and don’t even inject it back into the economy. They just make money off of the nearly free money guaranteed by the public sector. This is fair? Or part of the so-called “free market”?
One only needs to look at the Bank of North Dakota to see how this could work out.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[/quote]
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…[/quote]
hyperbole is exaggerating a point to an extreme to make a point that would not other wise be .
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Oligopolies and monopolies do not give you a choice.
[/quote]
WTF?
What do you think the government is?
Government and corporation aren’t all that different, not that I expect you to be able to see that fact.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…[/quote]
Financial sector corporations helped create a bubble by deregulating it’s sector. It became predatory. This in turn caused the real estate bubble to grow and eventually burst leaving everyday ordinary people to pick up the tab.
So banking can be made into a public utility. The private bankers get almost free money and don’t even inject it back into the economy. They just make money off of the nearly free money guaranteed by the public sector. This is fair? Or part of the so-called “free market”?
One only needs to look at the Bank of North Dakota to see how this could work out.
[/quote]
Not only does this not come close to answering his question, but I would expect more facts and circumstances left off an Oliver Stone movie.
What a horrid summary, even for a hack like yourself.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[/quote]
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…[/quote]
hyperbole is exaggerating a point to an extreme to make a point that would not other wise be .
[/quote]
I made no point, but merely asked questions.
The questions were:
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?
Neither has been answered, so I, along with Countingbeans it seems, will continue waiting.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure if you are responding to both parts of my post or just the first(it’s hard to tell over the internet), but just to clarify, the second part was in reference to government workers(politicians-pretty much any argument they make is ultimately meant to increase their power and control over others).[/quote]
Both parts. I’m in agreement. I don’t think it is good at all for government to step in and tell a company that they are forced to pay their employees any amount.
If a person doesn’t like what they are getting paid for doing what they do, they should either do something else or the same thing for someone else.
That shouldn’t require govt. intervention.
[/quote]
It has to require government intervention, otherwise corporations will just trample on people. Viva la profits above all else![/quote]
How would corporations trample on people?
Assuming your position is correct, would it not be better if the government not only intervened but ran the corporations then?[/quote]
hyperbole
[/quote]
Please explain.
The proper response to my questions would probably take the following form(or similar):
Corporations would trample on people by the following means: …
Yes/No, it would/would not be better if government ran(owned) corporations because…[/quote]
Financial sector corporations helped create a bubble by deregulating it’s sector. It became predatory. This in turn caused the real estate bubble to grow and eventually burst leaving everyday ordinary people to pick up the tab.
So banking can be made into a public utility. The private bankers get almost free money and don’t even inject it back into the economy. They just make money off of the nearly free money guaranteed by the public sector. This is fair? Or part of the so-called “free market”?
One only needs to look at the Bank of North Dakota to see how this could work out.
[/quote]
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.