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!
maybe because it's more fun for me to do this instead of applauding every iteration of Sally's recycled free market analysis that every UW freshman learned from Paul Heyne in Kane Hall.
We get it; equilibrium for the supply/demand of labor. The policy makers get it too. Welcome to American politics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sometimes your comebacks are off.
since you appear to be especially dull these days, i'll help you out just this one time: sarcasm.
i don't give a fuck about price floors because it's not really going to affect me. however, i do not, in principle, think they are a good idea for the (obvious) reasons you've regurgitated here.
Where the fuck were these teachers when I was in school?
Ever notice every single time the teacher is attractive too. I don't get it. It's not like she is homely and can't get laid from someone her age or at least some boy toy who is legal age. Why the fuck they feel the need to fuck some 16 year old I never did get it.
Also yes if I was 16 and any of these teachers who constantly get busted for this wanted to have sex with me I would willing do so.
FYFMFE
Agree - if I had a willing teacher like this, I would take her down to Saltwater State Park and give her the fucking HBI on a nightly basis
oh fuck yeah, me too. i would have hit that as many times a day as she would have it.
guess what? I've seen her in real life up close. it was not long after she was let out of the slammer. anyway, she's a little rougher looking up close, but I suppose that's due in part to the fact she'd been put through the wringer for a good long while. still, Mary Kay is, or at least was, a good looking broad.
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.
Disagree
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?
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.
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.
Disagree
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?
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.
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.
It's already been explained. Perhaps you should learn to read. The fruit pickers in Yakima laugh at our price floor on wages.
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!
maybe because it's more fun for me to do this instead of applauding every iteration of Sally's recycled free market analysis that every UW freshman learned from Paul Heyne in Kane Hall.
We get it; equilibrium for the supply/demand of labor. The policy makers get it too. Welcome to American politics.
You might get it, but I don't think "we" get it. OBK seems to be struggling with the basics. Maybe he didn't venture into Kane Hall?
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.
Disagree
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?
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.
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.
Disagree
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?
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.
Explain how it won't or shut the fuck up.
It's already been explained. Perhaps you should learn to read. The fruit pickers in Yakima laugh at our price floor on wages.
That whole story is great. For one, the teacher is pretty hot which helps the story. The kid is a dumbass for running his mouth, but the best part of the story is the teacher flipped out on the kid for taking a high school girl to the prom.
I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your post.
But what I don't understand is how you can think this chick is"hot" but then say Katie Perry and the little blonde homeschool prom tart that was allegedly making 45 y/o boners rise above waist bands not hot?
That whole story is great. For one, the teacher is pretty hot which helps the story. The kid is a dumbass for running his mouth, but the best part of the story is the teacher flipped out on the kid for taking a high school girl to the prom.
I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your post.
But what I don't understand is how you can think this chick is"hot" but then say Katie Perry and the little blonde homeschool prom tart that was allegedly making 45 y/o boners rise above waist bands not hot?
I feel you. The Katy perry critique was being a nitpicker. Fucking Katy perry would be incredible. Anyone would.
Comments
We get it; equilibrium for the supply/demand of labor. The policy makers get it too. Welcome to American politics.
since you appear to be especially dull these days, i'll help you out just this one time: sarcasm.
i don't give a fuck about price floors because it's not really going to affect me. however, i do not, in principle, think they are a good idea for the (obvious) reasons you've regurgitated here.
guess what? I've seen her in real life up close. it was not long after she was let out of the slammer. anyway, she's a little rougher looking up close, but I suppose that's due in part to the fact she'd been put through the wringer for a good long while. still, Mary Kay is, or at least was, a good looking broad.
Some of you guys are really anal with your posts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2648124/Utah-high-school-teacher-34-accused-having-sex-16-year-old-student-claims-SHE-victim-teen-boy-wore-defenses.html
She's so underpaid, she looks like she can barely afford food.
Everyone knows Wenatchee is the best apple scene.
Simple fact.
I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your post.
But what I don't understand is how you can think this chick is"hot" but then say Katie Perry and the little blonde homeschool prom tart that was allegedly making 45 y/o boners rise above waist bands not hot?