|
thegalagakid posted:He's attempting to make some not-really connected point, which I do not agree with, that if you pay a higher minimum wage, manufactures will just raise the prices to take more of that fortune the higher minimum wage earners get. Essentially, in this guy's view, the price you and I pay for a loaf of bread is determined not by supply and demand economics, but the bottom floor of the pay scale, and that inflates the price of whatever because there is now more disposable income at the bottom. It's horseshit, the kind of thing an rear end in a top hat with no idea how economic cycles operates would say. Ask this doofus how prices are set in the open market. As to the velocity question, if cost-push inflation were actually a thing, then raising the minimum wage would immediately lead to a corresponding inflation of prices of exactly that amount, so the velocity of money would essentialy remain unchanged since the margins of expenditures for households would remain static. Of course, to actually believe this, you have to ignore little incidents, like the New Deal. YEah, I looked it up and that isn't exactly what cost-push inflation means. Regardless, if that's what he THINKS it means, you just break down the cost structure of the thing you're looking at, and look at how small a portion wages are. Unless the entire economy and everything in it is produced under slave wages, increasing the pay of low-paid workers isn't going to increase prices that much, so they come out ahead.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:YEah, I looked it up and that isn't exactly what cost-push inflation means. Could he have been referring to the price/wage spiral?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
thegalagakid posted:Could he have been referring to the price/wage spiral? Probably, but for purposes of this situation it's bullshit anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
It's really interesting that prices have been going up faster than the minimum wage. How does that happen in his crazy understanding of economics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:It's really interesting that prices have been going up faster than the minimum wage. How does that happen in his crazy understanding of economics? Minimum wage is fixed by law, and not indexed to inflation in most places. De facto minimum wage will not exceed this until the real market value of those workers labor reaches that artificial floor. If you want to make this argument, don't use minimum wage, use median or average wages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:They're probably just trying to pay their parole or bs child support claims anyways. Lord knows those people would rather be on welfare like they always is. *not racist* I think it was a Congressman who said "Hunger can be a positive motivator." So yes, people literally think that starving the poor will get them to bootstrap themselves into a
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
CoolZidane posted:I think it was a Congressman who said "Hunger can be a positive motivator." So yes, people literally think that starving the poor will get them to bootstrap themselves into a Did you know some lazy poors have started committing crimes just to be sent to prison so they can get free meals and shelter, rather than find a job? This is why we need tougher prisons!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:Did you know some lazy poors have started committing crimes just to be sent to prison so they can get free meals and shelter, rather than find a job? I've heard people unironically make this argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
CoolZidane posted:I think it was a Congressman who said "Hunger can be a positive motivator." So yes, people literally think that starving the poor will get them to bootstrap themselves into a Hunger is a positive motivator for childrens' brain development.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
CoolZidane posted:I think it was a Congressman who said "Hunger can be a positive motivator." So yes, people literally think that starving the poor will get them to bootstrap themselves into a
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
I just read something in the Wired's comment section that was going off about how history isn't taught, we need to remove the progressive history in class, and that it's all Bill Ayers' fault. I don't even know..
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Phone posted:I just read something in the Wired's comment section that was going off about how history isn't taught, we need to remove the progressive history in class, and that it's all Bill Ayers' fault. These people are cognitive children and live in a world of bogeymen and the amazing heroes who fight against them. Bill Ayers, George Soros, ACORN, and so on... These aren't people to that sort of right winger. They're supervillains, is how they're cognitively understood and apprehended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
In west Honolulu, "born" and raised, on the choom gang is where I spent most of my days, drugging out, crack, smack, relaxing all cool, then I went to Indonesia, to a Muslim school, when a couple of guys who were up to no good, started planning out all my president-hood, I went to Harvard law, hid my transcripts there, and then I moved to Chicago to meet my mentor Bill Ayers. He used to bomb stuff and as he got near, my destiny of destroying the country was clear, if anything I could tell that this guy's a terrorist, but I said "man, my book's blank, please take and ghost write this" I pulled up to the white house seven or eight years later, and I said to Bill Ayers, yo homes, I'm a traitor! I looked at my country I was finally there, to poo poo on the throne, I'm the prince of Bill Ayers
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:These people are cognitive children and live in a world of bogeymen and the amazing heroes who fight against them. This pretty much categorizes about 80% of all comments underneath newstories on the web.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Someone sent me this link, its of course bullshit, but its saying it exonerates Dr. Wakefield: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/08/courts-quietly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism.html?m=1 I, of course, but no faith in that site for obvious reasons, still pissed me off
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Someone sent me this link, its of course bullshit, but its saying it exonerates Dr. Wakefield: Dr. Wakefield of Austin, TX? He's from England, how could they not even get that basic fact correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Sadly for Dr. Wakefield and affiliated anti-vaxxers, a court ruling in favour of crazy doesn't exhonerate fraudulent science. Did it ever occur to anyone the diagnosis for many disorders and diseases have become more accurate, and that the rise in MMR vaccine use is only superficially correlated with autism and related disorders?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Someone sent me this link, its of course bullshit, but its saying it exonerates Dr. Wakefield: Andrew Wakefield is one of the worst people still waking the planet. He's done tremendous damage and his ridiculous, irresponsible bullshit has directly caused the death of children. If he were beaten to death in broad daylight by a group of enraged virologists, I'd vote to acquit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Gonna go ahead and say that anything that exonerates Wakefield and his fraud would be in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet and not whydontyoutrythis.com
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
musclecoder posted:Dr. Wakefield of Austin, TX? He's from England, how could they not even get that basic fact correct? According to wikipedia he's moved to near Austin, TX. And that's sourced to a The Star article. e: It's also where he filed a 2nd libel suit against Brian Deer. Anniversary fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
greatn posted:In west Honolulu, "born" and raised, on the choom gang is where I spent most of my days, drugging out, crack, smack, relaxing all cool, then I went to Indonesia, to a Muslim school, when a couple of guys who were up to no good, started planning out all my president-hood, I went to Harvard law, hid my transcripts there, and then I moved to Chicago to meet my mentor Bill Ayers. I will. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Why are people taking loans to go to college? These people need to realize that higher education isn't for everyone. I loving hate that attitude/argument with a burning passion. My uncle (who is a rich, born-again christian and a staunch republican) told my mother (who is quite poor and on disability) my freshman year of college (and it was at a community college so I could transfer to a four year university to save money) that I should just drop out during my second week of college and just get a full time job instead to support her and myself. When my mom told him that it was important to myself and especially her that I stay in school, he said "That's bananas! College isn't for everyone!" I finally graduated after five years, three years ago with a double major and pretty solid grades to boot. I currently have a full-time career in Washington D.C. and will have my student loans paid off in the next year. I'm starting to look at houses, which is a huge deal to me. I look back at what my life was like eight years ago and I'm so loving ecstatic that I've come this far and I wouldn't have been able to do it without federal/state assistance among other things. Had I listened to my uncle, I would likely be living back home in the same poor city (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-16/national/37768635_1_food-stamps-woonsocket-mother-s-day) with minimal job prospects and a pretty dismal life. My only out would have likely been the military (which I have nothing against, I nearly commissioned as an officer) but that's definitely not for everyone. College may not be for everyone, but everyone should have the loving opportunity to at least try and see if it's for them. /rant
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
CoolZidane posted:I think it was a Congressman who said "Hunger can be a positive motivator." So yes, people literally think that starving the poor will get them to bootstrap themselves into a It really bothers me how common this and similar terrible arguments are. Not blocking out the names because gently caress these people. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
dur posted:It really bothers me how common this and similar terrible arguments are. Not blocking out the names because gently caress these people. Is Michael being sarcastic? He has to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
How long until people start suggesting we murder the poor and feed them to the middle class?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
It won't make a difference, but you could use this: Mark 12:41-44 New International Version (NIV) The Widow’s Offering 41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Minimum wage is fixed by law, and not indexed to inflation in most places. De facto minimum wage will not exceed this until the real market value of those workers labor reaches that artificial floor. I don't think you got my point. If, as the guy in a crazy forwarded political email stated, the minimum wage sets the price level, how could inflation outpace the growth of the minimum wage? EDIT: I actually had a more sophisticated point, but I don't even remember it, so I don't fault you for misinterpreting me. ohgodwhat fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:It won't make a difference, but you could use this: I'd worry they'd take it as proof that poor must give everything. I've noticed that most Christians in the US tend to gloss over or ignore the whole anti-wealth positioning of the new testament.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Is Michael being sarcastic? He has to be. Nope, he's not. He really is that terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
And lo, Jesus said "Look at this lazy-rear end ghetto bitch. I bet she has like six kids by four different men. Where'd you get the money to buy a shawl with shiny stones sewn on it when you can't even pay the rent? Just because I can create limitless amount of fish and bread isn't any reason for you to be asking for handouts. Why should I be using my blood to pay for your slothful sins?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Is Michael being sarcastic? He has to be. The poor have no incentives to stop being poor! Why move up when you can live in a lovely, low-income apartment, rely on food stamps at low-quality supermarkets, and work one or two minimum wage jobs just to make sure you don't end up homeless? Sounds like a pretty sweet gig to me! Poors just don't know how good they have it. The problem here is that people who aren't poor don't know what it's like being poor, and many think that being poor is a choice that can easily be avoided by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. They see all of these opportunities, but don't understand that being poor is a self-perpetuating cycle that makes it incredibly difficult to move up along the socio-economic ladder. Instead of seeing someone struggling to maintain their two minimum wage jobs, who needs the income to take care of themselves or their families, they see someone who is purposefully milking the system because "they're not actively trying to fix their situation, so they must be comfortable!" These people haven't seen the poo poo I've seen. And I mean literal poo poo. I live in the projects of the lower east side, and most certainly not by choice. Homeless/drunk people come in to my building and poo poo in the stairwells, elevators, and lobby. Not to mention vomit and piss. No one can stop it because housing doesn't have the resources to come and fix the front door. Porters only work on weekday mornings, so if someone shits in the stairs on a Friday night? You're gonna have a lovely weekend. That's just cosmetic though. There's drug addicts who OD on the rooftop, monthly shootings in the lobby, muggings on the street, crazy people who go from floor to floor rattling the doorknobs hoping to find an unlocked apartment door. This is the type of poo poo poor people deal with on a day to day basis. It's a lovely state of living that I would never wish on my worst enemy, let alone millions of people across the country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:And lo, Jesus said "Look at this lazy-rear end ghetto bitch. I bet she has like six kids by four different men. Where'd you get the money to buy a shawl with shiny stones sewn on it when you can't even pay the rent? Just because I can create limitless amount of fish and bread isn't any reason for you to be asking for handouts. Why should I be using my blood to pay for your slothful sins?" Do I have a topic for you! Yeah, people are obsessed with status symbols. It has had a sickening effect on the impoverished as they waste resources on status symbols to try to appear above their actual level. The levels above them proceed to poo poo on them for it, possibly out of pride over seeing the poors that should be shot in the street trying to show off their meager cars or TVs or jewelry. However, while it's terrible to waste resources on such things, the opposite end isn't any better in its view that the poor should have absolutely no status symbols, entertainment, or chances for personal growth and should be herd animals that work until they fall over dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Jesus also said to give whatever is asked of you. If someone asks you to walk a mile with them, walk two. If they ask for your shirt, give them your coat as well. There was no concept of "being taken advantage of" or "system abuse" because Christ constantly professed that temporal wealth is fleeting and one should store up for themselves treasures in heaven. If the modern Christian church actually followed the teachings of Christ they would be the most powerful force for charity and progressiveness in the world today. It is fun to watch people bend over backwards to reinterpret the words of Christ in a way that doesn't make them essentially Pharisees. When I was a cool Christian teen, I found a verse in Proverbs that said it's okay to drink if you're sad or down on your luck. quote:Proverbs 31: 6-7 Which puzzled me, because we were taught to be teetotalers and that any intoxication was evil. I went to my youth group pastor to ask him, and he gave me this convoluted rationale about how Jewish king Solomon, who lived in the eight century BCE, actually meant to get drunk on the "wine" that is faith in Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Trying to use religion to goad people into not being shits is counterproductive; it's like the aphorism about arguing with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level then win with experience. You'll have to stick to tactics rooted in reality, like statistics showing how little vertical movement there really is for the lower classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
zoux posted:If they ask for your shirt, give them your coat as well. I thought that was actually a subversive teaching. quote:Rather than trying to get an inner garment back by legal recourse, one should relinquish the outer one too! If taken literally, this practice would quickly lead to nudity (see also Stein 1978:10), an intolerable dishonor in Palestinian Jewish society (for example, Jub. 7:8-10, 20; 1QS 7.12). Many peasants (at least in poorer areas like Egypt) had only one outer cloak and pursued whatever legal recourse necessary to get it back if it was seized (CPJ 1:239-40, 129.5). Because the outer cloak doubled as a poor man's bedding, biblical law permitted no one to take it, even as a pledge overnight (Ex 22:26-27; Deut 24:12-13). Thus Jesus demands that we surrender the very possession the law explicitly protects from legal seizure (Guelich 1982:222). To force his hearers to think, then, Jesus provides a shockingly graphic, almost humorous illustration of what he means by nonresistance. His hearers value honor and things more than they value the kingdom. In a modern context, that might be something giving the bank all your clothes when they forclose on your home. Except that unlike the people living in Palestine, the banks probably aren't going to give a poo poo about intolerable dishonor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
You got the exact book/verse in the Bible about giving unconditionally?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:52
|
|
A lot of people have been using the following verse to justify not giving things to people who won't work.2nd Thessalonians 3:10 posted:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” I broke out my bible to read it in context, it's from the 2nd letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, which is only about two pages long. The preceding verse explicitly says that St. Paul and company had the right to ask for food without working. 2nd Thessalonians 3:6-15 posted:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” It makes me think that the people who throw that out there haven't actually read the Bible.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:How long until people start suggesting we murder the poor and feed them to the middle class? I think the Dead Kennedys already had a similar idea
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:A lot of people have been using the following verse to justify not giving things to people who won't work. quote:In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." e: vvvvvv I was being mostly tongue-in-cheek. People I know who espouse the "no work, no food" ideal would hate being cast as agreeing with anything said by Lenin or Marx. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Even then, within context, they're neglecting the other Marxist principal, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to their need'.Ho Chi Mint posted:
I really love that quote in context. Kind of states, 'poo poo sucks; we should help the poor and disenfranchised, but for your own sake in the meantime pull up your bootstraps (as much as possible)'. They explicitly state they do this as a model of behaviour to imitate, not that the unemployed shouldn't be entitled to food. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:14
|
|