|
thehomemaster posted:I don't see how communists think that this is a better idea than redistribution from the wealthy? I guess communists are the only ones capable of multitasking.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Businesses are not supposed to be responsible for life and death. Businesses are responsible for whatever the gently caress they are told. A business is not some immutable force of nature you watermelon fucker.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Other people are the ones presenting baked in assumptions that they don't even seem to recognize. I.E. that businesses are supposed to provide a living wage and are somehow costing society if they don't. quote:Businesses are responsible for whatever the gently caress they are told. A business is not some immutable force of nature you demented serial watermelon fucker.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:LOL no they're not. Businesses will try to make it work within whatever institutional structure is present but policy makers are not running a sim. So in other words quote:Businesses are responsible for whatever the gently caress they are told. A business is not some immutable force of nature you Pinochet apologist watermelon fucker.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:You have so fair failed, in your duty to me, to provide a rational argument as to the arbitrary imposition of age limitations on so called "child" labor. Why do you want to punish the most productive preadolescents in our society? Why do you want to reward the low-skill nonpubescent? It is immoral to prevent child labor in the Congo. You can't make an omelet without cracking a few small skulls.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Radish posted:How does the free market determine when a child is old enough to sign their own contracts or have their parents sell them into slave labor? The size of their hands. Small hands make excellent nails.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So let's be clear that minimum wage can be expected to transfer some wealth but it does it really poorly. Significant chunks of the additional wages come from middle and lower class owners/consumers, not rich people. Which is why I highly doubt anyone in this thread who supports minimum wage supports ONLY minimum wage. This is a stupid argument to make and is further evidence of watermelon buggery.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you nationalize their estates the first thing that will happen is the value of all those assets will crash and you'll be left with a mishmash of physical property you can't even find people to operate effectively, much less a liquid sum you can redistribute. It'd be horribly inflationary but you're better off just printing $500,000 per person and sending them a pallet of $1 bills. Wait, I thought the rich spent and invested their money, maintaining its velocity which is why we were supposed to support the wealth of the rich. Now you are saying it is the opposite and that they are literal economic parasites. You can't have it both ways, Pinochet.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In the like past 5 minutes of posting I made maybe $200. Just $200? Maybe you aren't the captain of industry I thought you were.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's simple breh. People take risks to invest in enterprises that become productive and provide the things that amount to our real wealth, and the jobs that allow the circulation of that wealth. I normally try and not make assumptions about people in real life based on their posting because that is loving stupid. Hell, I would probably have a great time drinking a beer with asdf32. But this is some cartoony Monopoly man poo poo right here.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I find that often when something sounds outrageous to me the problem is with the assumptions through which I am listening. Yet you edited it to sound less cartoony Monopoly man. I can appreciate a man who recognizes when he twirls his moustache.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Ummm. That post wasn't edited are you sure you're not thinking of someone else? Man, you are right, the change in tone was too good to be true. Sorry for mixing up two proximate posts, I blame it on the inferior quality of my poor person's brain. I only made a million dollars in the last 34 secs, but I am practically impoverished here in the big city.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:serious edit: as for the internet connection, I agree it should be available, but not necessarily in their homes, maybe in places like libraries I agree, resources should be expended to ensure poor people are inconvenienced in all aspects of their lives, otherwise they have no incentive to die depressed in a gutter.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm kind of slightly left of center bro. I think we've all learned something valuable about you from your post. I like how you attempt to self identify as something that could not possibly be further away from your supported policies because you are ashamed of the truth and possibly not being accepted as a cool kid on the internet. This also explains your need to pretend to have a higher income than anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If it's not a strawman then go quote the person who said that free education is an unfair subsidy for corporations. Go find that post and bring it here Ensuring WalMart can pay low wages is just as socially necessary as an educated workforce. There, now I said it.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Once again, a post that is actually a mirror. I'm like rubber and you're like glue - a real post by wateroverfire
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:a threat to job creators somewhere is a threat to job creators EVERYWHERE Must ensure a lower class exists to look down upon, how else could I look at myself in the mirror?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:is this the thread where we pretend to care about the global poor so we can complain about liberals This is the thread where we talk about known leftist ideals such as: Capitalism Privatization Reducing labor protection Inconveniencing poors
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So yes. I disagree. So you agree that education and food should be free, comrade.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You get your training then you adapt and overcome, bro. No one can guarantee your future in a world where they have no control over your choices. In a world of plenty, only the strongest shall survive.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There are no guarantees in this world where we can't provide everything for everybody. You can't provide everything therefore you should provide nothing.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
If poors didn't want to be poor they should not have chosen: to be black, to be born poor, to be beat as a child, to be raped by their uncle, to have a congenital defect, to get cancer, etc. etc. When it all comes down to it, they have only themselves and their poor decisions to blame.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Nothing. Definitely what is available from the public purse to poor people in the developed world today. The public purse you have vocally opposed. You are the one who used the language "no guarantees."
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Clearly when someone opposes free universal college education what they mean to say is no public programs for anyone ever except rich people. Clearly. So you are walking back on the no guarantees statement or did you just mean than in an abstract way that conveys no information so you can move the goalposts at will?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Here you unironically state the idiotic and undoubtedly internally inconsistent notion that somone's life is attached to their employer. You are right, peoples' lives are not attached to their employer, only their: healthcare, housing, utilities, food, water, entertainment, leisure, provision for family needs, retirement, ability to raise children, etc. etc. etc. You loving intellectual child.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
13 posts a day? THIRTEEN POSTS A DAY?!?!?!?! I've got to get the bread and milk! I'VE GOT TO GET THE BREAD AND MILK!!!!!11!!!!11!!1
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
How dare you spend $10 to post on a forum you like and THEN PROCEED TO POST ON SAID FORUM! I hope to G-D that you are only doing this from the library because HOW DARE YOU HAVE INTERNET ACCESS TOO!!!!
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I remember when McDonalds burgers were $0.29. Where's your god now, liberailures That was Hamburger Happy Hour Tuesdays (I think it was tuesday?) from the early 90s, right? I thought that was only a thing they did in my small town to compete with the local slug burgers, but the more you know...
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
It is possible that spending habits associated with a one time small windfall might differ than for reliable income?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If we want to know how much prices will go up across the economy "raw extra dollars" tells us that most directly. The absolute number is meaningless. It does not tell me how much more any specific item will cost, and it does not tell me overall impact on the economy without comparison to other numbers. That is the whole mathematic purpose behind ratios and proportions. If you tell me that labor costs will increase by $100 million, what data can I extract from that without plugging it into a formula with other data?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
So have we cycled back from the "poorly constructed economic argument against minimum wage" stage back to the "no true liberal would support minimum wage over X" stage? I would almost be sympathetic to the latter if it weren't the same cadre of posters who also argue against UBIs and other leftist programs in their respective threads.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You don't calculate it just to stare at it. The new wages (total dollars) delivered by the policy are what you compare to the size of the economy, existing labor costs or other policy like food stamps, min income or EITC. So basically what everyone else was explaining to you while you were throwing a fit about "exponential growth."
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is literally the fourth time I've linked this study ITT. Minimum wage hike leads to higher prices. Yet you conveniently leave out the part where the authors reveal that their methodology (survey sent to fast food restaurants asking before and after prices) can't definitively link price increases to wage increases. While it is certainly a plausible explanation and likely explanation for at least part of the price increase, the increase is overwhelmingly dwarfed by the gains in income.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The increase is dwarfed by the gains in income only for the people who see their salaries increase due to the minimum wage. People whose salaries will not increase due to the minimum wage are worse off, and that group includes a significant number of poor people who do not earn wage income. If you have research that makes you confident that more poor people will benefit than be harmed, I'd like to see it. You can't even count the number of people that you are concerned about but you call it significant without batting an eye. Given that $15 min wage would affect just a little south of half of workers, I can rest confident that my number is more significant that yours. Unless you want to prove that 70 some odd million people live in circumstance where they are untouched by anyone with income.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
tsa posted:I don't think you realize how many jobs are a couple dollars an hour away from being turned into a robot. You should look into that. This new Proxy Luddite movement is fascinating.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:What's the emoticon with the Ironicat that gets bigger and bigger? I can't find it. It is a mystical spontaneous phenomena summoned by wateroverfire's posting.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Take this, for instance. First, and you can verify this yourself in the May 2014 BLS survey, a $15 minimum wage reaches all the way up to about the 45th percentile of workers. That is not a change that is only going to affect the bottom rungs of the labor market. It's going to ripple up to raise costs for almost every input for almost every business. Actually if you read the BLS data or knew anything about business supply chain management (I will give you the benefit of the doubt not being in the US), then you would realize that the majority of the people making less than $15/hour are end consumer facing food service, consumer service, or retail workers, with the notable exception being textile workers. Logistics is dominated by fixed costs and workers earn generally higher wages. Raw resource inputs are either imported or are dominated by fixed costs and higher wage labor for harvesting. Intermediate parts are imported or manufactured in facilities operated by workers earning generally higher than the proposed minimum. At worst you would see a marginal increase due to higher wages for non-production workers such as janitors or cafeteria food vendors.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Gracias. I would be just fine with ~$12 federal and push for higher in metro areas. (Or aggressive social democracy/full communism now)
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Wealthy metro areas might be able to support $12 but in poor rural ones that's a lot of money. If it's federal and blankets everyone it probably needs to be $9-$10. Based on what analysis, or knowledge of rural America? Federal minimum wage has been as high as $12 inflation adjusted in the past. And once again, jobs most likely to be impacted by minimum wage are end consumer jobs: jobs that can't move offshore and are less likely to be automated.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I lived in the U.S. for many years and traveled a lot for work. There are rural towns in New England, the South, and the Mid West that might as well be in the third world and a few that are as bad as anything I've seen in Chile. A lot of them are slowly dying. The poverty is heart breaking. $12/hour is a huge amount of money for those places. You think you are the only one to visit rural America and that simply by visiting you have divined the answers to America's woes? You have this narcissistic tendency to believe you have gained some magical life experience that no one can match, and that you need nothing more to support your analysis. It is fascinating because this is the exact process behind the conservative Republican and Libertarian mindsets that plague these regions.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 18:38
|
|