the market speaks on $15 an hour

RoadDawg55

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.

Awesomed for moar_cuckold.

doogsinparadise

40oz got me like pl_ss tonight lol.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

Great contribution as always. Friday Sacrifice couldn't come soon enough.

doogsinparadise

RoadDawg liked it, me thinks that you're just sandy.

oregonblitzkrieg

creepycoug said:

MikeDamone said:

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Game over. Final Touchdown. CreepyCoug wins.

oregonblitzkrieg

MikeDamone said:

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

sarktastic

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.

Workers ARE fairly compensated.... "Here is the job, this is what it pays, do you want to work here for that?"

The problem is, the rocket washers want to be paid what the rocket scientists earn... after taking the job... but with fewer hours.

topdawgnc

CuntWaffle said:

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

Where the fuck were these teachers when I was in school?

They were there, you just didn't have The Facebook, The Twitter, or text to discreetly hit on them.

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.

sarktastic

creepycoug said:

MikeDamone said:

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Why the personal attacks, dude? why not just ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS!