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
-
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?
