|
Radbot posted:It's almost as if the people that are the most conservative were far more likely to have taken advantage of robust public educational institutions before they were dismantled, as they're more likely to be old. Sorry, old white folks don't get to play the "b-b-but I just didn't KNOW" card. I think that the answer is that these people don't associate "very conservative" with the sort of hardline fiscal conservatism pushed by rich Republican elites, it's pretty clear that those policies have never been very popular. You don't have big crowds of people rallying to cut social security and medicare, or even more nebulous things like "balance the budget." This explains why Trump has been quite popular among self-described "very conservative" people despite his economic heresy, the voters never really cared as much as the elites thought or hoped that they did.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
You made me love baseball. Not as a collection of numbers, but as an unpredictable, passionate game, beaten in excitement only by every other sport.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:You made me love baseball. Not as a collection of numbers, but as an unpredictable, passionate game, beaten in excitement only by every other sport. Get this on Audible then: http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-Idiots-Hundred-Rivalry-Beginning/dp/0767919106
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Announcer: It's the sixth game in the world series, and the current highlights is a cloud shaped like a giraffe that floated by during the rain delay. Oh, would you look at that? The batter just called time out again! Now let's look in the stands with the player's wives. Oh, what do you know! They're talking on cell phones. No doubt complaining about the good life. Kang: This is the most boring game in all the universe! Kodos: And with all the steroids they take the players look like freaks! Kang: The boredom is excruciating! Fire the Accele-Ray! [the flying saucer then fires the Accele-Ray at Earth, which causes the game to go faster] Announcer: Rodriguez pops to right field as some sort of Accele-Ray bathes the stadium in an eerie green glow. Who woul'da thunk it? Kang: It's still boring! Faster! Kodos: But the fabric of the universe itself may shatter! Kang: Good! Only then could the Cubs finally win!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
weekly font posted:So I have a few friends on facebook who personally know this guy and say it's legit. Fuckin lmao In that case: lol wow
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
boy vox is really poo poo isn't it
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Vox is 90% poo poo. Some of it is OK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Vox started out as The Slate/Salon/538 alternative and has been very slowly but surely going downhill, especially as they got dragged into Trump Thinkpiece Hell right along with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
They also write a lot of pieces that echo Democratic Party establishment talking points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Vox started out as The Slate/Salon/538 alternative and has been very slowly but surely going downhill, especially as they got dragged into Trump Thinkpiece Hell right along with everyone else. Internet forums poster believes Vox hasn't always been mostly lovely, here's why he's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
A great way to spot a lovely journalistic outfit is if they currently, or ever have, had Matt Yglesias on staff
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Bit of a random question, and probably completely off base. According the Living Wage Foundation here in the UK, we saw a drop in employee turnover and sick days since the minimum wage was introduced - suggesting that paying more than peanuts tends to lead to higher productivity due to morale improvements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Glenn beck's radio show episode today was titled "The internet = America of the founders???" and the whole opening monologue is a confused metaphor about
MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Glenn Beck suffers from mental illness? Im shocked, never could have seen this coming
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Vox started out as The Slate/Salon/538 alternative and has been very slowly but surely going downhill, especially as they got dragged into Trump Thinkpiece Hell right along with everyone else. Vox isn't even the site's original name. It was gonna be called the Tim Russert Memorial Global Center for Hottakes, but New York Magazine sniped Jonathan Chait first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:According the Living Wage Foundation here in the UK, we saw a drop in employee turnover and sick days since the minimum wage was introduced - suggesting that paying more than peanuts tends to lead to higher productivity due to morale improvements. I was actually more interested in it from the perspective of GAAP. But the UK findings doesn't surprise me in the least. The thing is, the former is something that can show up on your bottom line. The latter, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Bit of a random question, and probably completely off base. I think you're confusing your income statement and balance sheet accounts a bit, but I think I also understand what you're getting at. So, minimum wage goes up. If you employ low wage workers, your expenses go up, which reduces your net income before taxes. Since your net income before taxes is lower, your actual income tax expense will also be lower. However, your net income after taxes will still be lower than it was before you had to raise your wages, because only a portion of your income is taxed. So lets take the following example, a company with only wage expenses. Revenue: 100,000 Wage Exp: 50,000 NI Before Taxes: 50,000 Tax 30%: 15,000 NI After Taxes: 35,000 Then, assume a minimum wage increase passes, and their wage expense goes way up: Revenue: 100,000 Wage Exp: 65,000 NI Before Taxes: 35,000 Tax 30%: 10,500 NI After Taxes: 24,500 Both income tax and net income go down. Your net result is negative. HOWEVER, this analysis is extremely simple and ignores a lot of things. Suddenly, everyone in your community has more money in their pocket, and your revenue may go up, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:The thing is, the former is something that can show up on your bottom line. The latter, not so much. Turnaround can greatly affect turnover. The specific findings were that profits increased post-minimum-wage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Vox is 90% poo poo. Which makes it one of the best news sites on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I think you're confusing your income statement and balance sheet accounts a bit, but I think I also understand what you're getting at. Entirely possible - my current experience with financial accounting is limited to the night courses that I'm taking. I was also phone posting at the time, which further led to cock-ups. But it does look like I got the numbers bolloxed up in my head, mixing them up with being able to write off capital losses. Whoops. But then that's why I asked it as a question as opposed to bungee-jumping in and going "HEY GUYS WHY DON'T WE DO THIS THING". Tesseraction posted:Turnaround can greatly affect turnover. The specific findings were that profits increased post-minimum-wage. Do you have some articles to go along with that? Legit question. Radbot posted:A great way to spot a lovely journalistic outfit is if they currently, or ever have, had Matt Yglesias on staff What's the exact beef with Mr. Vampire Squid?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:What's the exact beef with Mr. Vampire Squid? Wrong Matt. You're thinking of Taibbi whose crimes amount to wanting to be Hunter Thompson too hard and getting paid by an oligarch $250k to do nothing for a year. Matt Yglesias is the guy who's OK with people dying so he can have cheap shirts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Wrong Matt. You're thinking of Taibbi whose crimes amount to wanting to be Hunter Thompson too hard and getting paid by an oligarch $250k to do nothing for a year. Ah, that'd do it then. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Do you have some articles to go along with that? Legit question. Sadly nothing to hand, although the same foundation mention it in the business section here - I'm considering asking them for a release of the survey, but it does also make sense to me having worked in the private sector. They were espousing the talking point on national radio a few days ago (specifically Saturday) so I'm hoping they aren't just bullshitting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Boon posted:Elizabeth Warren. I could see the co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold having a certain appeal going into the 16th year of GOP obstructionism. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I think you're confusing your income statement and balance sheet accounts a bit, but I think I also understand what you're getting at. One thing with this that's a bit off is the corporate income tax. Corporate income tax in America is a big boogey man for the double taxation crowd, but by and large most corporations pay no federal income tax. Only massive corporations with no way to deduct everything will ever pay any corporate tax. For any actual small business, a dramatic jump in income costs will have a negative effect, but I argue that any business that was dependent on paying people a sub livable wage isn't one that's going to last very long anyways. Some californian companies will be put under because of this. Those businesses probably weren't doing gangbusters to begin with, though. Now for the fortune 500 people that actually make enough money to pay a corporate tax can flat out afford to pay everyone significantly more and only don't because we've allowed the ruling class to suppress wages for the last 3-4 decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:One thing with this that's a bit off is the corporate income tax. Corporate income tax in America is a big boogey man for the double taxation crowd, but by and large most corporations pay no federal income tax. Only massive corporations with no way to deduct everything will ever pay any corporate tax. That's not true, at all. I have several clients who, for some reason or another, have C corps and pay tax on a relatively small income. Now, if you mean most corporations are S corps and the income passes through to the individual, it doesn't really change the analysis very much. Higher expenses will lead to less being passed through and taxed, but the owner still has less money in his pocket if his expenses go up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:That's not true, at all. I have several clients who, for some reason or another, have C corps and pay tax on a relatively small income. I was talking just about C corps because they're basically the only types subject to corporate tax. Passthrough entities are a different animal altogether. While there are some small C corps that for whatever reason can't deduct everything, that number is still on the small side of things. The vast majority of the ones that do pay corporate income tax are either very high revenue businesses and/or public companies. The overwhelming majority of small corporations do not pay any income tax because they never have a taxable profit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
I think people are missing the bigger picture. Revenue - expenses = profit. Companies pay taxes based of off that profit. Payroll it's an expense and an increase in payroll means a decrease in profit and a decrease in tax liability, which means a minimum wage hike would probably have a fairly negligible effect on a company's balance sheet. However, while payroll is an expense it is not the only expense and there are a myriad of other things that companies could spend money on that have a higher return than payroll. That said companies are in the business of selling goods and services, and there is an absolute limit to how much they can reduce costs and lower prices. At some point customers need to be able to afford their products or services at a price the company makes a profit at or the company will fail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I was talking just about C corps because they're basically the only types subject to corporate tax. Passthrough entities are a different animal altogether. I mean, most companies that make a profit have to pay tax. There are going to be differences between book income and tax income, but most of those are temporary differences (book deprciation vs MACRS or whatever). A company will either have net income at some point and pay tax at some point, or will never have net income and therefore fail. I'm not really seeing how a small to medium company that continues to make net income can avoid paying taxes indefinitely (assuming it's a C corp, of course). Now, a corporation may have losses or break even in one year, and taxable income the next year. In fact I think a lot of corporations are like that. So, in any given year, the percentage of C corps paying a tax is lower than the percentage of C corps that will pay tax in their lifetimes. The larger corporation that can afford different international arrangements for structuring their business, or have other particular wrinkles in the tax code that work well for them, I can see how they'd get away with continuing to make an income but not paying taxes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I think people are missing the bigger picture. Revenue - expenses = profit. Companies pay taxes based of off that profit. Payroll it's an expense and an increase in payroll means a decrease in profit and a decrease in tax liability, which means a minimum wage hike would probably have a fairly negligible effect on a company's balance sheet. Income statement. Although it eventually gets to the balance sheet through retained earnings. But I certainly wouldn't call it negligible. You can calculate it using pretty simple algebra. Assuming you're a corporation paying at the 35% rate, every extra dollar you are forced to spend in deductible expenses is going to reduce your net income after taxes by 65 cents. For some companies, that can amount to a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Larger corporations do pay corporate income tax. There are some instances where a small C corp will have a taxable profit, but those are more the exception rather than the rule. As for how a small business never makes a taxable profit, it's pretty easy to use all of your revenue in a tax deductible way. In most of these corps, the owners are also the employees so increased revenue just means increased wages. They do still pay payroll tax and personal income tax on these.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:For any actual small business, a dramatic jump in income costs will have a negative effect, but I argue that any business that was dependent on paying people a sub livable wage isn't one that's going to last very long anyways. Some californian companies will be put under because of this. Those businesses probably weren't doing gangbusters to begin with, though. This. Forever. Pound it into heads until people forget their own name before they forget this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet since I'm a couple hundred posts behind in this thread, but Sanders wants to shut down a nuclear power plant that provides 25 per cent of New York City's power in favor of renewables. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-calls-shutting-down-new-york-nuke-plant-n550331 Does he have any idea how many loving wind turbines you'd need to cover a quarter of NYC's daily energy requirements? Or how much space those turbines would take up? http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/how-many-wind-turbines-would-it-take-power-all-new-york-city Christ, Bernie. I like you as much as the next establishment Democrat, but that's just nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Volcott posted:I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet since I'm a couple hundred posts behind in this thread, but Sanders wants to shut down a nuclear power plant that provides 25 per cent of New York City's power in favor of renewables. Yeah, Sanders is pretty stupid on GMOs and Energy, unfortunately 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, Sanders is pretty stupid on GMOs and Energy, unfortunately That sums up one of the weaknesses of the Democrats, really. The GOP gets the bible thumpers and the sovcits, Demos get the anti-vaxxors and people who have a knee-jerk reaction to anything involving GMO or atoms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Lots of Democrats seem to like ignoring the idea of base load power, if you don't want coal or natural gas then nuclear and hydro are basically all you have left. Some people oppose all four of those and probably also don't want their lights to shut off at night or when there's no wind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Basically every river that can be dammed for power already has at this point though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
The anti-vax crowd is in both parties. If anything, I'd say more Republicans are in it because the people advocating are usually white and affluent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Star Man posted:The anti-vax crowd is in both parties. If anything, I'd say more Republicans are in it because the people advocating are usually white and affluent. Also due to homeschooled Fundie Jesus™ people. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Volcott posted:I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet since I'm a couple hundred posts behind in this thread, but Sanders wants to shut down a nuclear power plant that provides 25 per cent of New York City's power in favor of renewables. If this goes down like energiewende he could be competitive in Kentucky and WV!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:10
|
|
