Illegal Aliens Openly Promote Communism at Atlanta Rally
-
Looks like someone's opinion to me. "The bad news is that increasing the minimum wage will do little to improve conditions for the working poor" I don't have time to read this, can you explain why giving someone more money does not improve their condition ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I am sorry, but in this, you seem to me to be living in a bizarre fantasy world. I just cannot comprehend the chain of logic here, it simply makes no sense and is not based in reality.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Economic-Effects-of-the-Minimum-Wage[^]
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually.[1]The average family income of the typical low-wage worker was a respectable $40,000 per year. This is retarded. 1/5 of low income workers make more than $80 annually in their family, because they are kids working for pocket money. The average wage of the typical low wage earner, is going to be skewed by this fact. In Australia, the minimum wage is age balanced, that's why McDonalds has all 14-16 year olds working, because they are the cheapest workers. That's an example of how the system will adapt to lower it's costs based on whatever laws exist, or, if none exist, simply pay as little as they can, less than the current minimums. That's fine, everyone knows McDonalds is the place to go if you're a student looking to make a little money. This stops the minimum wage laws from causing people to pay too much to hire an inexperienced teenager, and also means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is. When the person making the minimum wage has 3 mouths to feed, that's a whole different ball game.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually.[1]The average family income of the typical low-wage worker was a respectable $40,000 per year. This is retarded. 1/5 of low income workers make more than $80 annually in their family, because they are kids working for pocket money. The average wage of the typical low wage earner, is going to be skewed by this fact. In Australia, the minimum wage is age balanced, that's why McDonalds has all 14-16 year olds working, because they are the cheapest workers. That's an example of how the system will adapt to lower it's costs based on whatever laws exist, or, if none exist, simply pay as little as they can, less than the current minimums. That's fine, everyone knows McDonalds is the place to go if you're a student looking to make a little money. This stops the minimum wage laws from causing people to pay too much to hire an inexperienced teenager, and also means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is. When the person making the minimum wage has 3 mouths to feed, that's a whole different ball game.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is.
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document? This is a big problem with people like you AND CSS. Yes, he's on my side. But to be fair, BOTH of you are trying to pick out little fragments to bias your claims. This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
My point is that if you think minimum wage is about being lazy, you are wrong. It is about being in a position that is undeniably crap. And a lot of minorities sit in that catagory. Getting rid of it means you are feeding them to the wolves.
I understand your point of view, I really do. I had that point of view once. Think of it this way, for an example: A small business (or large, at that) needs workers. The owner is black (to take race out of this, because this is exactly what I'm saying. Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.) and he needs five workers. The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage. 10 potentials show up and apply. He picks the two that he can get to employ. What happens to those other potentials? If he was allowed to hire at any wage they negotiated at, he could have employed all of them, or at least 5. Now, he could only hire 2. And this really isn't an exaggeration either. This is why the communities are struggling, or one reason.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If they put a law saying "pay your people enough to live, a-holes" it means people weren't doing it.
I realize this was happening. In Lowell MA of all places. It took them 100 years to put something into effect in the United States... so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising? Again, think about it. You're speaking about the differences between corporations and small businesses.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage.
I'm not sure how often I need to say this. When the minimum wage is so low, that people need welfare on top to survive, that he could use 5 workers at a cut rate is irrelevant. I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
josda1000 wrote:
so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising?
I can see how one reason was that small businesses put the boss in contact with the workers, so they cared if their workers lived or died. They probably knew them anyhow. But, is your solution to ban all corporations ? It's because of this lack of concern that big companies, given the chance, do pay less than a living wage. Again, The Jungle is set in the late 1800s and records how all of this went on, well before the New Deal and well before welfare. People simply worked in poverty and died. Why was there no uprising ? I have no idea.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is.
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document? This is a big problem with people like you AND CSS. Yes, he's on my side. But to be fair, BOTH of you are trying to pick out little fragments to bias your claims. This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document?
I don't have time to read it all. This was one of the first statements I saw when attempting to scan it, in fairness to you. It reminded me that the minimum wage here is not age scaled, which is a flaw in the system. If his central platform, his starting statement, is patently skewed and wrong, why would it get any better ?
josda1000 wrote:
This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Well, I apologise for raising a point that is perfectly valid, and which I raised to segue into another issue ( that of age scaling for minimum wages ). You know that the kids at McDonalds at home still make more than the single mother with two kids on minimum wage trying to get by in the USA ? You can say you're done, but I can't help but be disappointed that I feel I've raised some valid points and you're huffing off because I refused to spend an hour critiquing an entire document, right now, but still tried to put in enough to time move the discussion forward. CSS doesn't do that, he quotes something and abuses people who disagree.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage.
I'm not sure how often I need to say this. When the minimum wage is so low, that people need welfare on top to survive, that he could use 5 workers at a cut rate is irrelevant. I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
josda1000 wrote:
so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising?
I can see how one reason was that small businesses put the boss in contact with the workers, so they cared if their workers lived or died. They probably knew them anyhow. But, is your solution to ban all corporations ? It's because of this lack of concern that big companies, given the chance, do pay less than a living wage. Again, The Jungle is set in the late 1800s and records how all of this went on, well before the New Deal and well before welfare. People simply worked in poverty and died. Why was there no uprising ? I have no idea.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no idea.
I know. lol It's because there was very little inflation, very little taxes, and very little corruption because of very little government. Corruption breeds the corporations. Central banks breed corruption AND big government.
Christian Graus wrote:
I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
You can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical? As to paying whatever they want, they're a corporation, and that's why. Small businesses are much closer to their workers, therefore they actually need to care about their wellbeing. I think we're in agreement in this area, but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document?
I don't have time to read it all. This was one of the first statements I saw when attempting to scan it, in fairness to you. It reminded me that the minimum wage here is not age scaled, which is a flaw in the system. If his central platform, his starting statement, is patently skewed and wrong, why would it get any better ?
josda1000 wrote:
This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Well, I apologise for raising a point that is perfectly valid, and which I raised to segue into another issue ( that of age scaling for minimum wages ). You know that the kids at McDonalds at home still make more than the single mother with two kids on minimum wage trying to get by in the USA ? You can say you're done, but I can't help but be disappointed that I feel I've raised some valid points and you're huffing off because I refused to spend an hour critiquing an entire document, right now, but still tried to put in enough to time move the discussion forward. CSS doesn't do that, he quotes something and abuses people who disagree.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Honestly I have to continue working, I have a design doc to do. But you did also basically invalidate the whole document off of one line, which actually is what CSS would do. And that's my two reasons as to why I'm done for now. I also have a show tomorrow, and need to do some more research. I'm having someone running for Congress on the show.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no idea.
I know. lol It's because there was very little inflation, very little taxes, and very little corruption because of very little government. Corruption breeds the corporations. Central banks breed corruption AND big government.
Christian Graus wrote:
I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
You can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical? As to paying whatever they want, they're a corporation, and that's why. Small businesses are much closer to their workers, therefore they actually need to care about their wellbeing. I think we're in agreement in this area, but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical?
Humans also have overheads and operating expenses, that's entirely my point. The operating expenses of being alive are not covered by minimum wage, which is why all this talk about job creation is ludicrous, and any attempt to average out the family income of people on minimum wage fails to break those people in to obvious demographics, discount those who are not living on that money, and then look at the situation of the rest. As I said, offering a lower minimum for kids working for pocket money makes perfect sense.
josda1000 wrote:
but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Standard Oil ? The meat trust in Chicago ? These things existed in the time of small government.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Honestly I have to continue working, I have a design doc to do. But you did also basically invalidate the whole document off of one line, which actually is what CSS would do. And that's my two reasons as to why I'm done for now. I also have a show tomorrow, and need to do some more research. I'm having someone running for Congress on the show.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Fair enough. So long as you're not saying you're leaving b/c I've been unreasonable. I didn't claim to discount the entire document, although that clanger at the start does predispose me to read with skepticism, but I did think it was a point worth raising, I'd have raised it even if I raised a ton of others, and I'm sure I would have.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
You can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical?
Humans also have overheads and operating expenses, that's entirely my point. The operating expenses of being alive are not covered by minimum wage, which is why all this talk about job creation is ludicrous, and any attempt to average out the family income of people on minimum wage fails to break those people in to obvious demographics, discount those who are not living on that money, and then look at the situation of the rest. As I said, offering a lower minimum for kids working for pocket money makes perfect sense.
josda1000 wrote:
but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Standard Oil ? The meat trust in Chicago ? These things existed in the time of small government.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It can be argued that, actually, they did not. I would contend that with President Lincoln, big centralized government started. This was mostly because he was much like the second Bush. But like I said I have work to do... continue posting and I'll get back to it later tonight.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
It can be argued that, actually, they did not. I would contend that with President Lincoln, big centralized government started. This was mostly because he was much like the second Bush. But like I said I have work to do... continue posting and I'll get back to it later tonight.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I think the statement 'humans have overheads' most accurately represents what I see as the flaws in your thinking.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
My point is that if you think minimum wage is about being lazy, you are wrong. It is about being in a position that is undeniably crap. And a lot of minorities sit in that catagory. Getting rid of it means you are feeding them to the wolves.
I understand your point of view, I really do. I had that point of view once. Think of it this way, for an example: A small business (or large, at that) needs workers. The owner is black (to take race out of this, because this is exactly what I'm saying. Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.) and he needs five workers. The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage. 10 potentials show up and apply. He picks the two that he can get to employ. What happens to those other potentials? If he was allowed to hire at any wage they negotiated at, he could have employed all of them, or at least 5. Now, he could only hire 2. And this really isn't an exaggeration either. This is why the communities are struggling, or one reason.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If they put a law saying "pay your people enough to live, a-holes" it means people weren't doing it.
I realize this was happening. In Lowell MA of all places. It took them 100 years to put something into effect in the United States... so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising? Again, think about it. You're speaking about the differences between corporations and small businesses.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.)
My wife might disagree. I just see what happens. She gets stares for being around me in public if the people have no idea who I am. Christian responded to the other stuff. I am currently dealing with a network crisis so I will be more sporadic, and I'd just be restating some of his points anyway.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.)
My wife might disagree. I just see what happens. She gets stares for being around me in public if the people have no idea who I am. Christian responded to the other stuff. I am currently dealing with a network crisis so I will be more sporadic, and I'd just be restating some of his points anyway.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.