Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Quaildog:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Pardon old Squirrelly Dawg, He only believes what he pulls out of his rear end 

dire you are the one who claims to have earned your education by reading magazines. Not me. lol

My guess is; you believe in TV and accuracy of magazine articles. Probably the NY Times also. Huh? Am I hittin' the nail on it's head? There is no telling what you told other passengers on your bus ride over here from Atlanta. lol. Ole Squirrelly Dawg has had you treed in a dead snag from day one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My exact statement was "No, you dolt, " No, you dolt, business magazines, business sections of several newspapers, cable business stations including CNBC and Fox Business, plus the internet sites." 

 

Now, pray tell, what other sources are there, except book!  And, business moves too quickly for books to prove a source of relavent, current data. 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I want to ask a question,  is Australia's minimum wage over $15 per hour and their unemployment almost zero?  I think I read that somewhere.

 _____________________________________________
Congratulations, like many lefties, you've discovered the Australian minimum wage and, without researching further, believe they have the answer.  Trouble is you didn't ask the right questions.

Yes, their minimum wage for 20 and over is $15.66 an hour (varies with currency fluctuations).

 

The full scale is :

 

For junior employees, the minimum rates are:
Under 16 years of age $5.87
At 16 years of age $7.55
At 17 years of age $9.22
At 18 years of age $10.90
At 19 years of age $13.17
At 20 years of age $15.59.

http://cafehayek.com/2013/03/a...as-minimum-wage.html

 

They have sub-minimum wages to ease younger, inexperienced entrants into work at a scale more worthy of their experience.

 

As to unemployment:

 

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.co...ia/unemployment-rate

 

While good, hardly zero, is it.

 

Now, we must consider geography and demography.  Australia is an island nation - its relatively hard to enter, illegally.  Her population is a bit over 23 million. Except for a small number of humanitarian visas, Australia strictly controls visas for permanent entry.  One must possess certain skills  to obtain a permanent visa -- think mining and sheep shearing, as two of the most important.

 

To normalize that in  the US, we would have to re-militarize the southern border and begin a massive roundup of illegals -- who's presence help depress the labor market at the lesser skilled side.  So, when shall I hear you progressives call for such measures.

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

bahahahahaha! you're hilarious.

_______________________________
I try to list Crash's intellectual dishonesty, intellectual curiosity and intellect in descending order.  However, its difficult to determine which to list at the bottom.

__________________________________

you're a flat out liar. i challenge you to show where i was dishonest in any way.. or a formal public apology. you're a liar and an idiot .. i'll be posting this in every comment you make, until you show proof or apologize. idiot!

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

bahahahahaha! you're hilarious.

_______________________________
I try to list Crash's intellectual dishonesty, intellectual curiosity and intellect in descending order.  However, its difficult to determine which to list at the bottom.

__________________________________

you're a flat out liar. i challenge you to show where i was dishonest in any way.. or a formal public apology. you're a liar and an idiot .. i'll be posting this in every comment you make, until you show proof or apologize. idiot!

_________________________________________________

Crash conveniently ignored these two earlier posts:

22 hours ago


Originally Posted by direstraits:

As usual, Crash quickly crawdad's away from my questioning of his statements, using a throwaway line "business magazines." No, you dolt, business magazines, business sections of several newspapers, cable business stations including CNBC and Fox Business, plus the internet sites. 

________________________

so, get this.. dire knows everything about everything.. because he reads the 'business news'.. and yet.. i'm the 'dolt'. i asked for proof of your claim.. now, i'm supposed to prove what you said?   imagine that. you make a claim.. i ask for proof.. your reply..' i read it in the 'business news''..  you poor poor pitiful man. rt. wingnut politics.. turns out you can just make it up.. why not, they do.

____________________________________________________________________________

High under employment and unemployment rate (U6) is 12,6 percent for the last four months,

per Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Stagflation

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/br...ion-and-stagflation/

So, Crash where are your studies on increasing wages raising the economy, without inflation.

______________________________________________________

 

When I provided linked information, for which he earlier derided, I asked where was his information -- sound of crickets chirping.  Typical of left wing troll tactics -- ignore inconvenient facts. When confronted -- he only offers derision.  When finally exposed he insists he's the injured party, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raising The Minimum Wage To $10.10 Would Boost Growth By $22 Billion

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...nimum-wage-gdp-jobs/

 

The “Ripple Effect” of a Minimum Wage Increase on American Workers

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs...-wage-kearney-harris

 

Trickle-up economics

 

http://www.economist.com/news/...trickle-up-economics

 

again i ask you.. prove anything i said was 'intellectually dishonest'.. or crayfish away.. and change the topic.  you've shown your true colors. you are a liar and have zero credibility.

and just so our fellow forumites can see the conversation for themselves.. instead of your cherry picked quotes.. here it is. .in plain ole black and white. 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

My view of minimum wage is just as described -- it should represent the worth of a 16-year old's work at his first job.  Add, increasing the minimum wage 39 percent during a period of high under and unemployment, combined with stagflation, is display of hope over experience. 

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

can you provide proof of your statement.. or is that just more 'regressive facts'? real life shows.. with an increase in minimum wage comes an increase in demand.. and thus, increase in employment. because, in economics 101, an increase in demand.. is what really drives the economy.. contrary to what the forum's 'regressive accountant' may preach.

____________________________________

Crash,

 

Proof of what -- that we have high under and unemployment or that we are in a stagflation economy?  Only, if you haven't read the business news for the last five years, would you not recognize that.  Or, that increasing minimum wage fro $7.25 to $10.10 isn't a 39 percent increase/  Surely, even you can do basic math. 

 

Any economic studies I've read show that a significant increase in labor costs results in less employment and an increase in prices -- basic stagflation,  Perhaps, you could prove actual case histories to the opposite.

now, who's being dishonest.. it's plain and simple to see.. complete and total liar. credibility down the drain. you just keep showing how dishonest you have been and what a total liar you have been.

 

Last edited by Crash.Override
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

Raising The Minimum Wage To $10.10 Would Boost Growth By $22 Billion

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...nimum-wage-gdp-jobs/

 

The “Ripple Effect” of a Minimum Wage Increase on American Workers

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs...-wage-kearney-harris

 

Trickle-up economics

 

http://www.economist.com/news/...trickle-up-economics

 

again i ask you.. prove anything i said was 'intellectually dishonest'.. or crayfish away.. and change the topic.  you've shown your true colors. you are a liar and have zero credibility.

So do you think a business owner will just absorb the cut in take home pay that comes with being forced to increase wages in the hopes that sales MIGHT pick up?

 

Or will they cut hours, look at new technologies to replace workers(self serve kiosks), or layoff workers to maintain profitability? 

 

The best way to increase wages is through the economy growing and unemployment going down. When unemployment drops wages will go up. It's why burger flippers were making over $10 an hour up here in Chicago back in '05 when unemployment was below 5%. 

These are the jobs that are very susceptible to replacement by robotics. Why would a small business owner put up with tardiness, attitude, poor hygeine, and open themselves up to law suits when leaving the place of business to immature kids, when they could replace them with a $120K robot that only requires a little maintenance and some elctricity?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...food-worker-a-robot/

While I agree the technology is not there as of yet...

http://www.businessinsider.com...nt-use-robots-2014-4

at least not make burritos, there are plenty of places where they can be utilized.

At least the robots is less likely to embarass or get the place shut down...

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/fast-food/

and the illusion that raising the minimum wage actually decreases unemployment, is a point that can be challenged. When one looks at the numbers histroically, not all is what it appears to be...

http://www.moneynews.com/NealA...013/03/14/id/494620/

and now today we have an even larger employee pool, with the technology to replace those whothink they are worth much more than what they actually do.

 

"In another part of its study, the Cato Institute found that “only 20.8 percent  of all minimum wage workers are family heads or spouses working full time, 30.8  percent were children and 32.2 percent are young Americans enrolled in school.  The popular belief that minimum wage workers are poor adults (25 years old or  older), working full time and trying to raise a family is largely untrue. Just  4.7 percent match that description. Indeed, many minimum wage workers live in  families with incomes well above the poverty level.”


Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

again, i take it you didn't read any of the articles.

An excerpt from your Economist article. This is the most credible source you linked. It is a wonderful publication to which I subscribe.

 

 

 

The economic consequences are hard to predict. Economists historically frowned on minimum wages as distortionary price fixing that reduced demand for workers affected by the wage. But that assumption has come under fire from a growing body of research. The introduction of Britain’s minimum wage in 1999 had no notable impact on jobs, for example. In America, the White House approvingly cites research by Arindrajit Dube, William Lester and Michael Reich that compared counties where the minimum wage rate rose to neighbouring counties in states where it didn’t and found no negative effect on employment. The theory is that higher wages reduce costly turnover, reducing the incentive to lay workers off.

Some minimum-wage proponents go even further, arguing that a higher minimum boosts jobs by shifting income towards people who consume more of what they earn. The EPI, for example, last year claimed a minimum wage of $9.80 per hour would create 100,000 jobs.

But David Neumark and William Wascher, who have long studied, and been critical, of the minimum wage, maintain the evidence bears out basic economic intuition: a higher minimum wage costs some low-skilled workers their jobs while helping those who keep them. Mr Neumark is particularly dismissive of the notion that a higher minimum wage can boost the economy, and indeed that is not a claim the White House makes.

For Mr Obama, that may not matter. His speech contained many more effective means to boost growth and incomes of the poor, from increased infrastructure to early childhood education. Unlike the minimum wage, though, they cost the government money that it doesn’t have.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

economics 101: as demand increases.. so will either price or supply or both. we've had decades of giving money to the 'job creators'.. we all see where that has gotten us.. how about we try the other way.. i believe the regressives are scared to try... they know it'll be the end of their economic policy making.

Crash, if it were as easy as creating artificial wage floors then we could simply raise wages to the point where there would be no poverty. However, we both know that would not work.

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

economics 101: as demand increases.. so will either price or supply or both. we've had decades of giving money to the 'job creators'.. we all see where that has gotten us.. how about we try the other way.. i believe the regressives are scared to try... they know it'll be the end of their economic policy making.

Crash, take a look at the state of France's economy right now if you want to see what happens to an economy that caters to over zealous unions, has high regulations, and has oppressively high taxes on business and the wealthy.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

t I've long suspected that your source of enlightenment sprang from a ludicrously simplistic, unrealistic, or one-dimensional portrayal or version [Webster def. of cartoon] of the truth.

You are correct.  I learned everything I needed to know from Space Ghost and Johnny Quest, and got my economical genius from Richie Rich and Scrooge McDuck.  You should have paid more attention and tuned to something other than Mr. Magoo and Looney Tunes...haha....

Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

t I've long suspected that your source of enlightenment sprang from a ludicrously simplistic, unrealistic, or one-dimensional portrayal or version [Webster def. of cartoon] of the truth.

You are correct.  I learned everything I needed to know from Space Ghost and Johnny Quest, and got my economical genius from Richie Rich and Scrooge McDuck.  You should have paid more attention and tuned to something other than Mr. Magoo and Looney Tunes...haha....

lol I knew it.

The 35-hour workweek in France was supposed to increase employment -- ti didn't.  Large companies negotiated with the unions to give more time off during peak production seasons.  Results -- some workers have seven weeks of vacation time. Small enterprises like shops and cafes determined theit slower times and simply closed when workers reached the 35-hour limit.  

In another part of its study, the Cato Institute found that “only 20.8 percent  of all minimum wage workers are family heads or spouses working full time

 

1/5 of minimum wage earners are family heads or spouses working FULL TIME.  Teyates, you ought to be real proud of that post.

Something to remember:  The Heritage Foundation studied and determined that George Bushes tax cuts would wipe out unemployment and cause a budget surplus far into the future.  Keep that in mind when you post something that these over educated idiots put out.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

In another part of its study, the Cato Institute found that “only 20.8 percent  of all minimum wage workers are family heads or spouses working full time

 

1/5 of minimum wage earners are family heads or spouses working FULL TIME.  Teyates, you ought to be real proud of that post.

Something to remember:  The Heritage Foundation studied and determined that George Bushes tax cuts would wipe out unemployment and cause a budget surplus far into the future.  Keep that in mind when you post something that these over educated idiots put out.

________________________________________________
You do realize that BLS statistics showing only 4.7 percent of workers earning minimum wage combined with that 20.8 percent of 4.7 percent means only about 0.9 percent of all workers who are family heads make minimum wage.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

What?

How do you not understand what he said?

 

Only 4.7% of hourly wage earners earn minimum wage. Of that 4.7% only 20.7% file as head of household. That means that of the hourly wage earners that file as head of household less than 1% make minimum wage.

 

As I keep telling you all, this is solely a political argument that has zero economic merit.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

dire, Kenny and t fill their conservative gut while a fourth of American children are hungry. Don't think that crew can't quote some statistic to console their conscience. It's just awful.

Poor QD. 

 

The only thought he has is what a Democrat politicians tells him to think. I feel sorry for people that cannot think for themselves. LOL

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Kenny, I am confident that yourself and confederate dire will fail miserably in your war against mankind. 

What war?

 

I want to give poor black kids the chance to get out of their underperforming schools. You want to force them to stay in them.

 

I want to expand the earned income tax credit for the working poor and also restructure it to where it is received in monthly paychecks. You want to provide incentive for the poor not to work. 

 

It sounds like you are the one who want to keep the poor  "in their place". 

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×