The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour. wouldn’t that be far better than allowing the under skilled and under educated to work for only $15 per hour?

So…why not $30?
[/quote]

Exactly. When a lefty is faced with this question one of two things happens. The clever ones will say there point of diminishing returns on a raise in minimum wage, which is horseshit. Or they will ignore the question all together and say you are being extreme or hyperbolic. Either way they know they are wrong, just trying to skate around that fact.

624

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
…The clever ones will say there point of diminishing returns on a raise in minimum wage…

[/quote]

if there is , it is a long way off

625

The reason the left has no answer to a $30 minimum wage is because their entire party is based on emotion and feeling good. There is very little logic left in the democratic party.

Everyone deserves free health care- Why?

Everyone deserves a free college education- Why?

But of course the problem is that nothing is actually free. When they say free hold on tightly to your wallet. What they really mean is this: Someone else should pay for your health care and your college education.

Now…how does that make sense?

It doesn’t!

626

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour. wouldn’t that be far better than allowing the under skilled and under educated to work for only $15 per hour?

So…why not $30?
[/quote]

Exactly. When a lefty is faced with this question one of two things happens. The clever ones will say there point of diminishing returns on a raise in minimum wage, which is horseshit. Or they will ignore the question all together and say you are being extreme or hyperbolic. Either way they know they are wrong, just trying to skate around that fact.
[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of scaling up the minimum wage, but there is nothing illogical about someone saying $15 but not $30. There is a law of diminishing returns at issue as well as a recognition that a consideration of the impact of a massive rise in costs to an employer would have (versus a smaller or incremental increase).

Its a minimum, not a median, and the modern economy has taken quantum leaps while a minimum wage has been in place. I don’t think a largeb increase is a good idea given the current labor market, but there’s nothing illogical about the suggestion.

627

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
, but there is nothing illogical about someone saying $15 but not $30. There is a law of diminishing returns

[/quote]
true but there is a limit , just like there is on an unregulated labor market . It will only get worse for every job that either moves or is eliminated by Tech, there is 1 less job , 1 more lazy person just sucking off the working man’s tit. Before long we all be lazy people sucking off ???

629

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour. wouldn’t that be far better than allowing the under skilled and under educated to work for only $15 per hour?

So…why not $30?
[/quote]

Exactly. When a lefty is faced with this question one of two things happens. The clever ones will say there point of diminishing returns on a raise in minimum wage, which is horseshit. Or they will ignore the question all together and say you are being extreme or hyperbolic. Either way they know they are wrong, just trying to skate around that fact.
[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of scaling up the minimum wage, but there is nothing illogical about someone saying $15 but not $30. There is a law of diminishing returns at issue as well as a recognition that a consideration of the impact of a massive rise in costs to an employer would have (versus a smaller or incremental increase).

Its a minimum, not a median, and the modern economy has taken quantum leaps while a minimum wage has been in place. I don’t think a largeb increase is a good idea given the current labor market, but there’s nothing illogical about the suggestion.

[/quote]

Of course, I think you’re wrong. You’ve got Stupid ($15), Stupider ($30) and Even More Stupid ($50). They’re all stupid. All illogical. All just a different shade of Stupid.

The economy has taken quantum leaps *(debatable) in spite of the ball and chain of minimum wages – and bullshit like Davis Bacon.

The reason I say debatable is because it’s widely accepted that the “quantum leaps” of the economy is built on the sandy foundation of artificially low interest rates, the printing of money, i.e., QE, and China devaluing its currency for quite some time. But that takes us off on a sidetrack. Suffice it to say that all that glitters is not gold, amigo.[/quote]

I have I agree with Push. GDP may grow in spite of minimum wage laws, but the empirical record demonstrates that their passage is accompanied by a decrease in the real wages of the lowest earners. They bring about exactly what they are designed to prevent.

630

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour. wouldn’t that be far better than allowing the under skilled and under educated to work for only $15 per hour?

So…why not $30?
[/quote]

Exactly. When a lefty is faced with this question one of two things happens. The clever ones will say there point of diminishing returns on a raise in minimum wage, which is horseshit. Or they will ignore the question all together and say you are being extreme or hyperbolic. Either way they know they are wrong, just trying to skate around that fact.
[/quote]

I’m not a huge fan of scaling up the minimum wage, but there is nothing illogical about someone saying $15 but not $30. There is a law of diminishing returns at issue as well as a recognition that a consideration of the impact of a massive rise in costs to an employer would have (versus a smaller or incremental increase).

Its a minimum, not a median, and the modern economy has taken quantum leaps while a minimum wage has been in place. I don’t think a largeb increase is a good idea given the current labor market, but there’s nothing illogical about the suggestion.

[/quote]

Of course, I think you’re wrong. You’ve got Stupid ($15), Stupider ($30) and Even More Stupid ($50). They’re all stupid. All illogical. All just a different shade of Stupid.

The economy has taken quantum leaps *(debatable) in spite of the ball and chain of minimum wages – and bullshit like Davis Bacon.

The reason I say debatable is because it’s widely accepted that the “quantum leaps” of the economy is built on the sandy foundation of artificially low interest rates, the printing of money, i.e., QE, and China devaluing its currency for quite some time. But that takes us off on a sidetrack. Suffice it to say that all that glitters is not gold, amigo.[/quote]

Well, the point about the quantum leap is that we’ve had minimum wage standards since the 1930s and such standards have not impaired the economy’s ability to grow, and indeed, transform.

I don’t have a basic conceptual problem with minimum wage standards. As an anti-poverty measure, they set the floor. Guaranteed minimum income - of which minimum wage standards form a part - had advocates such as Hayek and Milton Friedman (if memory serves).

But I think such standards work better in a more stable economy, with unemployment generally low. We don’t have that, and probably won’t for a while. Unemployment (real) is too high to start erecting barriers to employment, which bug jumps in the minimum wage would certainly do.

631

To clarify: I misremembered Friedman’s position. He advocated do a minimum income (through a redistributive negative tax) as an alternative to minimum wage laws, which he did not support.

632

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, the point about the quantum leap is that we’ve had minimum wage standards since the 1930s and such standards have not impaired the economy’s ability to grow, and indeed, transform.[/quote]

You are right of course, but we don’t know how much more we could have grown without this make believe “minimum” do we?

633

A fine analysis of why those self-proclaimed “true conservatives” who have brooked no compromise on “conservative” principles that support Trump now look like fools.

634

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, the point about the quantum leap is that we’ve had minimum wage standards since the 1930s and such standards have not impaired the economy’s ability to grow, and indeed, transform.[/quote]

You are right of course, but we don’t know how much more we could have grown without this make believe “minimum” do we?

[/quote]

We also don’t know if we would have grown less during that time without a minimum wage law. That speaks to the point of causation (or lack of it)- the economy is driven by many factors other than minimum wage laws.

But the one thing we do know is that minimum wage laws clearly did not prevent the economic quantum leap we have enjoyed since the inception of those laws.

635

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A fine analysis of why those self-proclaimed “true conservatives” who have brooked no compromise on “conservative” principles that support Trump now look like fools.[/quote]

But, in reality that’s always the way it has been for the masses. Do you really think the country suddenly fell in love with conservatism back in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected? No way! It was Reagan that they fell in love with. Just like when Obama was elected. Do you really think the country took that wide of a left turn? No, it was Obama they fell in love with.

If Trump can actually survive the next debate after being attacked gang style (that is a possibility) then he has a good chance of becoming the nominee. And not because he’s a wanna be conservative. It will be for the same reason every other President has won in the media age (beginning 1960)…personal style, looks and charisma.

This is how the average person votes.

You and I may not like it but it is an undeniable fact!

636

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A fine analysis of why those self-proclaimed “true conservatives” who have brooked no compromise on “conservative” principles that support Trump now look like fools.[/quote]

But, in reality that’s always the way it has been for the masses. Do you really think the country suddenly fell in love with conservatism back in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected? No way! It was Reagan that they fell in love with. Just like when Obama was elected. Do you really think the country took that wide of a left turn? No, it was Obama they fell in love with.

If Trump can actually survive the next debate after being attacked gang style (that is a possibility) then he has a good chance of becoming the nominee. And not because he’s a wanna be conservative. It will be for the same reason every other President has won in the media age (beginning 1960)…personal style, looks and charisma.

This is how the average person votes.

You and I may not like it but it is an undeniable fact![/quote]

That’s all irrelevant to the point the article is making. The issue is not low-information, largely non-ideological voters - the issue is hardcore “true conservatives” who pay close attention to politics, have uncompromising principles and litmus tests (“no RINOs! That’s why we keep losing!”), and then start backing a candidate who has been clear he doesn’t agree with them on these non-negotiable principles and on paper, is well to the left bif purported RINOs.

Next time, read the article.

638

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A fine analysis of why those self-proclaimed “true conservatives” who have brooked no compromise on “conservative” principles that support Trump now look like fools.[/quote]

God I love Cooke. Even when I disagree with him, which this time isn’t the case.

640

[quote]ZEB wrote:

If Trump can actually survive the next debate after being attacked gang style (that is a possibility) then he has a good chance of becoming the nominee. [/quote]

Which would be an utter disaster.

Unmitigated and utter fucking disaster.

Trump v Clinton - Clinton wins in a Nixon-esk landslide. Probably not 49 states, but 40-44 for sure.

Trump v Sanders - Sanders wins similar to Romney Obama.

There isn’t a single Democrat that will lose to trump currently considering running. Jeb could switch parties tomorrow and kick Trumps ass. (Wouldn’t be much of a change in Jeb’s positions either.) Turn out in a general won’t be low enough for Trump to not get his ass kicked.