Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
the market speaks on $15 an hour
Comments
-
Awesomed for moar_cuckold.doogsinparadise said:Maybe, just maybe, they're attracted to their victims and not to some sweatpants wearing, dickless, mommy boys at the strip club. Ever think about that Moar_cukold? Why don't you take out your nub of a cock and wiggle it around, try to forget your weasily little life.
-
40oz got me like pl_ss tonight lol.
-
Well considering she married the kid after she got out of prison for 7 years there is more to it. She's obviously fucked up in the head.doogsinparadise said:Maybe, just maybe, they're attracted to their victims and not to some sweatpants wearing, dickless, mommy boys at the strip club. Ever think about that Moar_cuckold? Why don't you take out your nub of a cock and wiggle it around, try to forget your weasily little life.
Great contribution as always. Friday Sacrifice couldn't come soon enough. -
RoadDawg liked it, me thinks that you're just sandy.
-
Game over. Final Touchdown. CreepyCoug wins.creepycoug said:
disagree. that's just more bourgeois mythology fabricated and regurgitated to entrench the status quo for those who control the means of production. fuck, can you just not move on from your econ 202 class? what's it been? 30 years? read another fucking book or drink more of those cocktails you used to ramble on about. you were a lot more fun back then.MikeDamone said:
I've had that conversation. They use a false argument that more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy. It's false because productivity has not changed and they may be taking money that could be used for capital investment. Those are the true drivers of growth. Not consumption. (This is why it's not a zero sum game) And even if it is spent by these people, it has no better benefit than if the owners, executives and managers spent it.CuntWaffle said:I just dont know why they stopped at 15.... Should just go to 50. More money equals a better economy and happier people. Fact.
So if you extend their argument out that if $15 is good, why not $50 or $100, they say no one is talking about a wage that high and it's hyperbole. But what they deny or are too dumb to grasp is the same economic models that make $50 ridiculous, apply to $15 and hour. The intuitively know that $50 is too much, but have an arbitrary number in their head they think will work. The question isn't if the wage will be out of equilibrium, but by how much, and how much is acceptable to them? How many people are they willing to hurt in order to help others? That is not compassion, that's using the force of government to coerce people to forward their socialist agenda. It's easy to feign compassion with other peoples money. It makes you look like a fucking hero at cocktail parties and the reception area of the youth symphony ( hi collegedoog).
and while you're at it, why don't you lay off the blind people and the retards. they've never done a fucking thing to you. i mean, what kind of mother fucker lies in waiting for a seeing eye dog to take a shit on a plane so he can make a federal case out of it? prick.
-
Right. No one is motivated to be more productive by higher wages. The workforce has reached maximum productivity because everyone believes they are being fairly compensated. Smells like horse shit. I thought Derek banned the horse that was defecating on women's heads around here.MikeDamone said:
I've had that conversation. They use a false argument that more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy. It's false because productivity has not changed and they may be taking money that could be used for capital investment. Those are the true drivers of growth. Not consumption. (This is why it's not a zero sum game) And even if it is spent by these people, it has no better benefit than if the owners, executives and managers spent it.CuntWaffle said:I just dont know why they stopped at 15.... Should just go to 50. More money equals a better economy and happier people. Fact.
One figure has it that average CEO pay is 331 times that of the average worker. Money being put to real productive use right? Lets use that figure as an example. Say there are 331 employees at a company, each making $20,000 a year. The CEO is making $6.62 million (331 x 20,000). $13.24 million is being spent on salaries. Here's some food for thought: How about increasing the employees' salaries to $35,000 each. You now have $11.59 million in employee salary expenditure, with $1.66 million left over for CEO pay (still WAY too fucking high compared to the average worker). You tell me what would be more productive. A single, useless parasite at the very top forging his golden parachute from the fleece of the Argonauts, or 331 workers who just got their salaries nearly doubled? Not only will they be happy to work harder, because they feel they are getting paid closer to what they're worth, but more skilled people will be drawn into the equation (like you said), thereby increasing productivity. I'd wager every one of Citrus Man's 20's in circulation, together with all of Cockus's poasts, that the company that axes CEO pay with a view to more fairly compensating their workers, would outperform the fucked up company in the above example.
The CEO is taking an obscene amount of money that could otherwise be used for capital investment, not the poorly paid workers who make the company go round.
As for the rest of the argument, the "more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy." That is correct. The fat cat faggot who is blowing his money on Rolls Royces and French villas, will still buy the same amount of groceries. The workers (who can now actually afford to buy enough groceries to feed their families) will be weened off of foodstamps (which they have to use because of the shit poor pay they get) and will spend more on food, clothing, gas, everything. The argument is reasonable. Water doesn't get much wetter than that. -
You can also publicly suck a woman's tit and not get arrested, or sunbathe bare-assed in a park if that's your thing.PurpleJ said:Europe rules, because you can get addicted to smack and get it for free from the government for the rest of your life. What a great place!
-
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours. -
They were there, you just didn't have The Facebook, The Twitter, or text to discreetly hit on them.CuntWaffle said:
Where the fuck were these teachers when I was in school?priapism said:Teachers make $80K in New York, productivity appears up:
nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/queens-gym-teacher-raped-16-year-old-wrestler-school-prosecutors-article-1.1815445
Back in the day you had to be a man and get your pussy face to face.
And if you were a man and nailed that pussy face to face it was whispered about, not posted on The Social Media.
-
Why the personal attacks, dude? why not just ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS!creepycoug said:
disagree. that's just more bourgeois mythology fabricated and regurgitated to entrench the status quo for those who control the means of production. fuck, can you just not move on from your econ 202 class? what's it been? 30 years? read another fucking book or drink more of those cocktails you used to ramble on about. you were a lot more fun back then.MikeDamone said:
I've had that conversation. They use a false argument that more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy. It's false because productivity has not changed and they may be taking money that could be used for capital investment. Those are the true drivers of growth. Not consumption. (This is why it's not a zero sum game) And even if it is spent by these people, it has no better benefit than if the owners, executives and managers spent it.CuntWaffle said:I just dont know why they stopped at 15.... Should just go to 50. More money equals a better economy and happier people. Fact.
So if you extend their argument out that if $15 is good, why not $50 or $100, they say no one is talking about a wage that high and it's hyperbole. But what they deny or are too dumb to grasp is the same economic models that make $50 ridiculous, apply to $15 and hour. The intuitively know that $50 is too much, but have an arbitrary number in their head they think will work. The question isn't if the wage will be out of equilibrium, but by how much, and how much is acceptable to them? How many people are they willing to hurt in order to help others? That is not compassion, that's using the force of government to coerce people to forward their socialist agenda. It's easy to feign compassion with other peoples money. It makes you look like a fucking hero at cocktail parties and the reception area of the youth symphony ( hi collegedoog).
and while you're at it, why don't you lay off the blind people and the retards. they've never done a fucking thing to you. i mean, what kind of mother fucker lies in waiting for a seeing eye dog to take a shit on a plane so he can make a federal case out of it? prick.
-
creepycoug said:
disagree. that's just more bourgeois mythology fabricated and regurgitated to entrench the status quo for those who control the means of production. fuck, can you just not move on from your econ 202 class? what's it been? 30 years? read another fucking book or drink more of those cocktails you used to ramble on about. you were a lot more fun back then.MikeDamone said:
I've had that conversation. They use a false argument that more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy. It's false because productivity has not changed and they may be taking money that could be used for capital investment. Those are the true drivers of growth. Not consumption. (This is why it's not a zero sum game) And even if it is spent by these people, it has no better benefit than if the owners, executives and managers spent it.CuntWaffle said:I just dont know why they stopped at 15.... Should just go to 50. More money equals a better economy and happier people. Fact.
So if you extend their argument out that if $15 is good, why not $50 or $100, they say no one is talking about a wage that high and it's hyperbole. But what they deny or are too dumb to grasp is the same economic models that make $50 ridiculous, apply to $15 and hour. The intuitively know that $50 is too much, but have an arbitrary number in their head they think will work. The question isn't if the wage will be out of equilibrium, but by how much, and how much is acceptable to them? How many people are they willing to hurt in order to help others? That is not compassion, that's using the force of government to coerce people to forward their socialist agenda. It's easy to feign compassion with other peoples money. It makes you look like a fucking hero at cocktail parties and the reception area of the youth symphony ( hi collegedoog).
and while you're at it, why don't you lay off the blind people and the retards. they've never done a fucking thing to you. i mean, what kind of mother fucker lies in waiting for a seeing eye dog to take a shit on a plane so he can make a federal case out of it? prick.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Right. No one is motivated to be more productive by higher wages. The workforce has reached maximum productivity because everyone believes they are being fairly compensated. Smells like horse shit. I thought Derek banned the horse that was defecating on women's heads around here.MikeDamone said:
I've had that conversation. They use a false argument that more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy. It's false because productivity has not changed and they may be taking money that could be used for capital investment. Those are the true drivers of growth. Not consumption. (This is why it's not a zero sum game) And even if it is spent by these people, it has no better benefit than if the owners, executives and managers spent it.CuntWaffle said:I just dont know why they stopped at 15.... Should just go to 50. More money equals a better economy and happier people. Fact.
One figure has it that average CEO pay is 331 times that of the average worker. Money being put to real productive use right? Lets use that figure as an example. Say there are 331 employees at a company, each making $20,000 a year. The CEO is making $6.62 million (331 x 20,000). $13.24 million is being spent on salaries. Here's some food for thought: How about increasing the employees' salaries to $35,000 each. You now have $11.59 million in employee salary expenditure, with $1.66 million left over for CEO pay (still WAY too fucking high compared to the average worker). You tell me what would be more productive. A single, useless parasite at the very top forging his golden parachute from the fleece of the Argonauts, or 331 workers who just got their salaries nearly doubled? Not only will they be happy to work harder, because they feel they are getting paid closer to what they're worth, but more skilled people will be drawn into the equation (like you said), thereby increasing productivity. I'd wager every one of Citrus Man's 20's in circulation, together with all of Cockus's poasts, that the company that axes CEO pay with a view to more fairly compensating their workers, would outperform the fucked up company in the above example.
The CEO is taking an obscene amount of money that could otherwise be used for capital investment, not the poorly paid workers who make the company go round.
As for the rest of the argument, the "more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy." That is correct. The fat cat faggot who is blowing his money on Rolls Royces and French villas, will still buy the same amount of groceries. The workers (who can now actually afford to buy enough groceries to feed their families) will be weened off of foodstamps (which they have to use because of the shit poor pay they get) and will spend more on food, clothing, gas, everything. The argument is reasonable. Water doesn't get much wetter than that.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Game over. Final Touchdown. CreepyCoug wins.creepycoug said:
disagree. that's just more bourgeois mythology fabricated and regurgitated to entrench the status quo for those who control the means of production. fuck, can you just not move on from your econ 202 class? what's it been? 30 years? read another fucking book or drink more of those cocktails you used to ramble on about. you were a lot more fun back then.MikeDamone said:
I've had that conversation. They use a false argument that more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy. It's false because productivity has not changed and they may be taking money that could be used for capital investment. Those are the true drivers of growth. Not consumption. (This is why it's not a zero sum game) And even if it is spent by these people, it has no better benefit than if the owners, executives and managers spent it.CuntWaffle said:I just dont know why they stopped at 15.... Should just go to 50. More money equals a better economy and happier people. Fact.
So if you extend their argument out that if $15 is good, why not $50 or $100, they say no one is talking about a wage that high and it's hyperbole. But what they deny or are too dumb to grasp is the same economic models that make $50 ridiculous, apply to $15 and hour. The intuitively know that $50 is too much, but have an arbitrary number in their head they think will work. The question isn't if the wage will be out of equilibrium, but by how much, and how much is acceptable to them? How many people are they willing to hurt in order to help others? That is not compassion, that's using the force of government to coerce people to forward their socialist agenda. It's easy to feign compassion with other peoples money. It makes you look like a fucking hero at cocktail parties and the reception area of the youth symphony ( hi collegedoog).
and while you're at it, why don't you lay off the blind people and the retards. they've never done a fucking thing to you. i mean, what kind of mother fucker lies in waiting for a seeing eye dog to take a shit on a plane so he can make a federal case out of it? prick.
He wins the prize for the best Ad hominem attack...that's for sure. (Which just edged out the "Why let the facts get in the way?" award)
You get the Best Strawman Award. -
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
-
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK. -
It depends on the job...Many earn more. And some jobs that earned a good wage in the 1970's no longer exist. And some jobs that didn't exist in the 1970's now do. Anyway..Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp401.pdf
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566
-
End of day.
this is a fucking union play.
the higher the minimum wage the more they can negotiate for their members, meaning the more they get for their war chest.
and the President of the AFL-CIO, UAW, will still command CEO like wages.
... -
But some CEOs are more equal than others.topdawgnc said:End of day.
this is a fucking union play.
the higher the minimum wage the more they can negotiate for their members, meaning the more they get for their war chest.
and the President of the AFL-CIO, UAW, will still command CEO like wages.
... -
Those are the good CEOs.
-
I like to gloss over 201 which is more integral to this conversation to fit my agenda. I do that.creepycoug said:
disagree. that's just more bourgeois mythology fabricated and regurgitated to entrench the status quo for those who control the means of production. fuck, can you just not move on from your econ 202 class? what's it been? 30 years? read another fucking book or drink more of those cocktails you used to ramble on about. you were a lot more fun back then.MikeDamone said:
I've had that conversation. They use a false argument that more money for people to spend will be multiplied and help the economy. It's false because productivity has not changed and they may be taking money that could be used for capital investment. Those are the true drivers of growth. Not consumption. (This is why it's not a zero sum game) And even if it is spent by these people, it has no better benefit than if the owners, executives and managers spent it.CuntWaffle said:I just dont know why they stopped at 15.... Should just go to 50. More money equals a better economy and happier people. Fact.
So if you extend their argument out that if $15 is good, why not $50 or $100, they say no one is talking about a wage that high and it's hyperbole. But what they deny or are too dumb to grasp is the same economic models that make $50 ridiculous, apply to $15 and hour. The intuitively know that $50 is too much, but have an arbitrary number in their head they think will work. The question isn't if the wage will be out of equilibrium, but by how much, and how much is acceptable to them? How many people are they willing to hurt in order to help others? That is not compassion, that's using the force of government to coerce people to forward their socialist agenda. It's easy to feign compassion with other peoples money. It makes you look like a fucking hero at cocktail parties and the reception area of the youth symphony ( hi collegedoog).
and while you're at it, why don't you lay off the blind people and the retards. they've never done a fucking thing to you. i mean, what kind of mother fucker lies in waiting for a seeing eye dog to take a shit on a plane so he can make a federal case out of it? prick.
#collegedoogterritory -
Might be cheaper to hire more female CEOs, since they allegedly make $.69 to the dollar that men make.GrundleStiltzkin said:
But some CEOs are more equal than others.topdawgnc said:End of day.
this is a fucking union play.
the higher the minimum wage the more they can negotiate for their members, meaning the more they get for their war chest.
and the President of the AFL-CIO, UAW, will still command CEO like wages.
... -
I wonder if the teacher let the kid bare pickle her two hole?
-
Nice work skirting the issue and not addressing his point. Are meat packers less valuable today than they were in the 70's? They aren't. So why are they getting fucked on their pay? Trickle Down Economics is just as big of a hoax as Marxist theory. Your views read like propaganda from the oligarchs. It always amuses me how some people so vociferously defend the right of the few to fuck the many, when they themselves are among the many.MikeDamone said:
It depends on the job...Many earn more. And some jobs that earned a good wage in the 1970's no longer exist. And some jobs that didn't exist in the 1970's now do. Anyway..Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp401.pdf
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566 -
Are meat packers worth less today? If what you say is true, then yes. If technology has reduced it to a low skill job that has allowed the supply of labor to expand, then necessarily the price of that labor will decrease. It's probably more complex than that, but I haven't looked into that specific industry in depth.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice work skirting the issue and not addressing his point. Are meat packers less valuable today than they were in the 70's? They aren't. So why are they getting fucked on their pay? Trickle Down Economics is just as big of a hoax as Marxist theory. Your views read like propaganda from the oligarchs. It always amuses me how some people so vociferously defend the right of the few to fuck the many, when they themselves are among the many.MikeDamone said:
It depends on the job...Many earn more. And some jobs that earned a good wage in the 1970's no longer exist. And some jobs that didn't exist in the 1970's now do. Anyway..Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp401.pdf
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566
What is Trickle down economics? It's not a theory you will find anywhere expect in leftist blogs and politicized propaganda pieces.
I don't think you know what an oligarch is but if you've read anything I've written here you would know the oligarchy, crony capitalism, government special favors and tax breaks, and greedy corrupt government trying to legislate greedy corrupt corporations are things I consistently lash out out. But you can't see the forest for the trees, you make assumptions, mostly false and use tired leftist argument tactics and back up nothing with facts and but with things that you have "heard"
I don't defend anyone to fuck anyone. That's not capitalism. No one has the right to cheat anyone.
Do me a favor if you want to have these discussions. Instead of going off on angry tirades and using divisive inflammatory language, at least educate yourself in some very basic principles and then we can debate those. I challenge you to read these to things and tell me why they are wrong. Explain to me why what I wrote earlier in this thread using proven economic theory and models is wrong. I know you won't to it, but at least I tried.
mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf
mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf
Good day sir!
-
MikeDamone said:
Are meat packers worth less today? If what you say is true, then yes. If technology has reduced it to a low skill job that has allowed the supply of labor to expand, then necessarily the price of that labor will decrease. It's probably more complex than that, but I haven't looked into that specific industry in depth.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice work skirting the issue and not addressing his point. Are meat packers less valuable today than they were in the 70's? They aren't. So why are they getting fucked on their pay? Trickle Down Economics is just as big of a hoax as Marxist theory. Your views read like propaganda from the oligarchs. It always amuses me how some people so vociferously defend the right of the few to fuck the many, when they themselves are among the many.MikeDamone said:
It depends on the job...Many earn more. And some jobs that earned a good wage in the 1970's no longer exist. And some jobs that didn't exist in the 1970's now do. Anyway..Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp401.pdf
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566
What is Trickle down economics? It's not a theory you will find anywhere expect in leftist blogs and politicized propaganda pieces.
I don't think you know what an oligarch is but if you've read anything I've written here you would know the oligarchy, crony capitalism, government special favors and tax breaks, and greedy corrupt government trying to legislate greedy corrupt corporations are things I consistently lash out out. But you can't see the forest for the trees, you make assumptions, mostly false and use tired leftist argument tactics and back up nothing with facts and but with things that you have "heard"
I don't defend anyone to fuck anyone. That's not capitalism. No one has the right to cheat anyone.
Do me a favor if you want to have these discussions. Instead of going off on angry tirades and using divisive inflammatory language, at least educate yourself in some very basic principles and then we can debate those. I challenge you to read these to things and tell me why they are wrong. Explain to me why what I wrote earlier in this thread using proven economic theory and models is wrong. I know you won't to it, but at least I tried.
mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf
mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf
Good day sir!
Well bro, since it's going to come down to reading 400 pages of economic philosophy or researching what strain of psilocybin cubensis I'm going to grow next, I'm going to go with the shrooms for now. Also I'm not angry. Not much sense in getting pissed about someone's different viewpoint. It would be rather boring if we all agreed on everything, wouldn't it?
Haven't been here long enough to get the full gist of your philosophy in its entirety. Maybe you could start a thread a sum up what you feel are the most important points. -
PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names -
It's ridiculous how bad he presses with the multiple sn's and how slavishly the doogs defend him.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names -
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names -
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.PurpleJ said:
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names -
oregonblitzkrieg said:
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.PurpleJ said:
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names
It's already been explained. Perhaps you should learn to read. The fruit pickers in Yakima laugh at our price floor on wages.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.PurpleJ said:
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names
-
Do you pick the blueberries or the strawberries?PurpleJ said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.PurpleJ said:
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names
It's already been explained. Perhaps you should learn to read. The fruit pickers in Yakima laugh at our price floor on wages.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.PurpleJ said:
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names -
Apples, actually.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Do you pick the blueberries or the strawberries?PurpleJ said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.PurpleJ said:
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names
It's already been explained. Perhaps you should learn to read. The fruit pickers in Yakima laugh at our price floor on wages.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.PurpleJ said:
You cited one job as an example. Do explain now how the $15 minimum wage will increase economic output and purchasing power, or shut the fuck up.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:PurpleJ said:
Okay. What does that have anything to do with accepting the job based on what it pays?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Disagreesarktastic said:
Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"Mad_Son said:The idea behind a higher minimum wage is that the money will come out of corporate profits and executive salaries.
Executives didn't become executives by allowing workers to be fairly compensated and letting profits fall. That is a downside to reality.
The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.
Real wages for many jobs have decreased, adjusted for inflation, since the 70s.
Ex: Meat packers (yeah, lol), or it might have been butchers earned $40,000/yr. in 2010 dollars in the 70s, now they earn $24,000. People didn't really notice until the Great Recession (I sure as hell didn't) because it was very gradual.
It's ironic you start talking about real wages and inflation, considering the topic we are on. What will this $15/hour do to raise real wages? Crickets?
Good. Now shut the fuck up. You're almost as bad as OBK.
I pointed out a misconception Poindexter. Now go change in to one of your 48 names
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
