Republicans Block Minimum Wage Again [Archive] - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug

06-23-2006, 11:31 AM

Hasn't been increased for almost 10 years now. Corporate America at work once again denying people fair wages for work done through republicans in Congress.

---------------------------------------------------------
GOP-run Senate kills minimum wage increase
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent Thu Jun 22, 12:42 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled Senate smothered a proposed election-year increase in the minimum wage Wednesday, rejecting Democratic claims that it was past time to boost the $5.15 hourly pay floor that has been in effect for nearly a decade.

The 52-46 vote was eight short of the 60 needed for approval under budget rules and came one day after House Republican leaders made clear they do not intend to allow a vote on the issue, fearing it might pass.

The Senate vote marked the ninth time since 1997 that Democrats there have proposed — and Republicans have blocked — a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage. The debate fell along predictable lines.

"Americans believe that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. A job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. He said a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn $10,700 a year, "almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three."

Kennedy also said lawmakers' annual pay has risen by roughly $30,000 since the last increase in the minimum wage.

Republicans said a minimum wage increase would wind up hurting the low-wage workers that Democrats said they want to help.

"For every increase you make in the minimum wage, you will cost some of them their jobs," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

He described the clash as a "classic debate between two very different philosophies. One philosophy that believes in the marketplace, the competitive system ... and entrepreneurship. And secondly is the argument that says the government knows better and that topdown mandates work."

The measure drew the support of 43 Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent. Four of those eight Republicans are seeking re-election in the fall.

Democrats had conceded in advance that this attempt to raise the minimum wage would fare no better than their previous attempts. At the same time, they have made clear in recent days they hope to gain support in the coming midterm elections by stressing the issue. Organized labor supports the legislation, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said that contrary to some impressions, most minimum wage workers are adults, not teenagers, and many of them are women.

"When the Democrats control the Senate, one of the first pieces of legislation we'll see is an increase in the minimum wage," said Kennedy.

His proposal would have increased the minimum wage to $5.85 beginning 60 days after the legislation was enacted; to $6.55 one year later; and to $7.25 a year after that. He said inflation has eroded the value of the current $5.15 minimum wage by 20 percent.
CONT (http://tinyurl.com/ju3o5)

Rohirrim

06-23-2006, 11:41 AM

Fortunately, Congress has been able to give itself 8 raises since the last time they raised the min. wage.

RMT

06-23-2006, 05:33 PM

Fortunately, Congress has been able to give itself 8 raises since the last time they raised the min. wage.

This is yet another example of what Lou Dobbs calls the "attack on the middle class" and the low income folks. Our government has lost all touch with its constituents.

footstepsfrom#27

06-23-2006, 06:20 PM

"For every increase you make in the minimum wage, you will cost some of them their jobs," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

He described the clash as a "classic debate between two very different philosophies. One philosophy that believes in the marketplace, the competitive system ... and entrepreneurship. And secondly is the argument that says the government knows better and that topdown mandates work."

Isakson needs to take a look at where "bottom up" economic strategies are working and who is making them work, because it's certainly not the GOP. If anything, they've passed up the DEMS in centralizing power in the hands of the federal government, and in terms of empowering the bottom of the economic pyramid, failing to up the minimum wage is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this administration's total neglect of people on the economic margins.

mosca

06-23-2006, 10:07 PM

This is yet another example of what Lou Dobbs calls the "attack on the middle class" and the low income folks. Our government has lost all touch with its constituents.

Our Congress needs to realize the difference between "people" and "folks"... they probably consider themselves to be people, but have absolutely nothing in common with regular ol' folks... folks being the working class who deserve, if anything, any increase in the minimum wage.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-24-2006, 02:46 AM

Hasn't been increased for almost 10 years now. Corporate America at work once again denying people fair wages for work done through republicans in Congress.

Yep.

By contrast, the minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour during the Clinton administration, increasing wages for 10 million workers.

Clinton called for an additional increase to $6.15, but, if memory serves me, the republi-cons shot that down.

broncocalijohn

06-24-2006, 02:56 AM

Bronco_Beerslug

06-24-2006, 06:31 AM

Spider

06-24-2006, 07:19 AM

keep raising the minimum wage and your taco bell food wont have anything under a buck. It happened last time when the wage went up and the $.59 menu disappeared. I know many of you are on the taco bell luch/dinner. This will affect you!
Bullshít ........... you realy need to study some son ..........
Take J.B. Hunt , warner , Swift , etc ...... these guys operate by volume , for example , I chage 2.50 per mile or 185.00 per hour , to deliever loads , those guys will do it for .50 -.75 cents a mile , they have more volume then I do ......
So I am a specialized carrier , somthing the big companies cant bite into ..so your min wage argument with Taco Bell is dubious at best .......... Small business owners you could have an argument , but either way a min wage increase does no where the damage we are doing right now with fuel prices ......... In other words save your flawed Republican talking points .........

footstepsfrom#27

06-24-2006, 08:08 AM

keep raising the minimum wage and your taco bell food wont have anything under a buck. It happened last time when the wage went up and the $.59 menu disappeared. I know many of you are on the taco bell luch/dinner. This will affect you!
Eh...yeah, that's high on my list of problems.;D Here's a thought; le's DROP the minimum wage back to .85 an hour and we'll have .25 cent hamburgers again! ::)

BroncoBuff

06-24-2006, 08:11 AM

Eh...yeah, that's high on my list of problems.;D Here's a thought; le's DROP the minimum wage back to .85 an hour and we'll have .25 cent hamburgers again! ::)
Excellent!

See?

You don't have to be a rich guy named Sam from Arkansas to think like that!

<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 10px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=700 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px" width=168>http://www.walmart.com/i/if/logo_always.gif (http://www.walmart.com/)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

broncocalijohn

06-24-2006, 01:51 PM

Bronco_Beerslug

06-24-2006, 03:38 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-24-2006, 04:15 PM

You've fallen for the right wing baloney corporate spiel, hook, line and sinker.

True that.

It's truly amazing how successful the republi-cons have been in convincing people like broncocalijohn that the interests of big corporations and the interests of the rank and file GOP voter are one and the same.

footstepsfrom#27

06-24-2006, 04:32 PM

You guys cant tell a joke/tongue in cheek if it bit you in the groin. First, what happen at Taco Bell was true as I stated. But, if you want to take my statement as more than tongue in cheek, go for it. Minimum wage jobs are for teenagers to start. I never want to hear about minimum wage needs to be a living wage. If you are at minimum wage with a family, you are either an illegal and to you that is good money or you are a total loser. Maybe some of you just want the minimum wage increased but not to a living wage. I like the concept of bettering yourself or work another part time job to get things done in financial life. Stop working just 8 hours and try 12.
Among the "total losers" in this country who work minimum wage jobs are senior citizens who were shoved out of their real jobs due to age discrimination, adults, including many who used to be in the middle class, with narrow job qualifications who had their jobs outsourced or downsized, single mothers who can't go back to school and still take care of their children, and people who had the missfortune of attending one the wonderful inner city urban snake pits we jokingly call schools. And as far as working 12 hours a day goes, do a little math. IF you don't have kids and aren't paying out half your check for child care, and you work 60 hours a week at 5.15 per hour, that's a whopping $309 a week, about $250 a week after taxes.

Given that the rate of inflation has held fairly constant at around 4% per year for the last decade, the $5.15 an hour that was deemed acceptable in 1996 is now worth about 60% of what it was then. In real dollars adjusted for the 4% annual rate of inflation over the last ten years, today's minimum wage needs to be $7.68 to maintain the same purchasing power it did in 1996. Instead it is worth $3.48 in 1996 dollars. Thus, not only has the minimum wage not risen, it's actually fallen by over $1.50 an hour in actual purchasing power.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-24-2006, 04:45 PM

Among the "total losers" in this country who work minimum wage jobs are senior citizens who were shoved out of their real jobs due to age discrimination, adults, including many who used to be in the middle class, with narrow job qualifications who had their jobs outsourced or downsized, single mothers who can't go back to school and still take care of their children, and people who had the missfortune of attending one the wonderful inner city urban snake pits we jokingly call schools. And as far as working 12 hours a day goes, do a little math. IF you don't have kids and aren't paying out half your check for child care, and you work 60 hours a week at 5.15 per hour, that's a whopping $309 a week, about $250 a week after taxes.

Given that the rate of inflation has held fairly constant at around 4% per year for the last decade, the $5.15 an hour that was deemed acceptable in 1996 is now worth about 60% of what it was then. In real dollars adjusted for the 4% annual rate of inflation over the last ten years, today's minimum wage needs to be $7.68 to maintain the same purchasing power it did in 1996. Instead it is worth $3.48 in 1996 dollars. Thus, not only has the minimum wage not risen, it's actually fallen by over $1.50 an hour in actual purchasing power.

:thumbsup: Great post.

When I consider the grim realities you just described here, people like broncocalijohn seem almost sociopathic in their lack of empathy - contempt, even - for those less fortunate than themselves.

These people have only one moral code: "I got mine, f_ck everybody else."

Spider

06-24-2006, 10:27 PM

broncocalijohn

06-26-2006, 03:26 PM

you are a díck ..... I know some damn hard working people that dont make much , but they love what they do , or the Single mother working as a waitress to make ends meet , they need those tips ...... Shít happens to good people ..... no need to make life harder on them .....
Like I said you are a total dick ....

Waitress is a minimum wage PLUS TIPS! That doesnt make it a minimum job in my eyes. You guys think i follow the republican way of thinking is untrue as I am for my feelings that happen to follow the republican way. I am a conservative first. Minimum wage jobs are not geared for families but entry level jobs where they can get a raise as they learn experience. I dont want to hold everyones hand based on them falling on hard times. Sounds cruel? sure to you. Minimum wage jobs is how i described it. I dont want whinners i want winners. Do something about your situation and do it like millions have. For those senior citizens that go "lose" their jobs. Did they plan for retirement? Can they get a job using their experience ie Home DEPOT that pays more than minimum wagE? I use harsh words as in "loser". I have more sympathy for that "loser" if he bettered himself with part time school/2nd job. I care for the one who is trying to do better not sitting and accepting their minimum wage job. My arguement is more for not having it as a living wage than necesarily a raise in the minimum wage.

Smiling Assassin27

06-26-2006, 03:43 PM

Meck77

06-26-2006, 03:55 PM

so somebody prove to me that jobs will not be lost by dictating that a company (small or other) pay their employees more. what's the point of raising wages if we lose jobs (albeit higher paying jobs now)? clinton himself said that raising the minimum wage was NOT the way to raise the incomes of low wage earners. from what i've seen in my town, where the City Council has enacted an $8.50 minimum wage, small businesses are folding and big companies are leaving town.

Add the fact that there are millions of eager illegal immigrants ready to step in and work at less than the minimum wage. Houston we have a problem.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-26-2006, 05:32 PM

so somebody prove to me that jobs will not be lost by dictating that a company (small or other) pay their employees more. what's the point of raising wages if we lose jobs (albeit higher paying jobs now)? clinton himself said that raising the minimum wage was NOT the way to raise the incomes of low wage earners. from what i've seen in my town, where the City Council has enacted an $8.50 minimum wage, small businesses are folding and big companies are leaving town.
Yeah lets continue to increase the divide between people that have and people that don't, that has to be good for corporate America, right? Evidenced by the new record numbers of Americans in poverty every year for the last 5 and 50 million Americans that don't have ANY health insurance due in large part to low paying service jobs with no benefits.

cbs1177

06-26-2006, 07:50 PM

I think minium wage should be left up to the states. I mean Arkansas's highest personal income tax bracket is 29,200 after that you have to figure out the rest. I know that 29,200 does not get you crap in New York City. Also here in Arkansas I rent a no frills 2 bedroom I bath aparment for 315/month. I think cost of living should be a factor. I think blanket wage is okay at the federal level but states should have individual minium wages they should enact. Let's face it Arkansas isn't Los Angelos or NYC. So this belly aching over a failed ammendment doesn't cause me to shed one tear drop. Merely those that are complaining should write their state representatives.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-26-2006, 07:58 PM

Yeah lets continue to increase the divide between people that have and people that don't, that has to be good for corporate America, right? Evidenced by the new record numbers of Americans in poverty every year for the last 5 and 50 million Americans that don't have ANY health insurance due in large part to low paying service jobs with no benefits.

It's pretty obvious that Smiling Assassin27 is another one of those folks who have been duped into believing that his interests (or the interests of small business owners) and the interests of Bush's corporate bosses are one and the same.

fdf

06-26-2006, 08:09 PM

keep raising the minimum wage and your taco bell food wont have anything under a buck. It happened last time when the wage went up and the $.59 menu disappeared. I know many of you are on the taco bell luch/dinner. This will affect you!

It will also hurt folks at the margin badly. Every study of the effect of mininum wages over many decades has found that it causes increased unemployment amongst the poorest and most marginal people in society. Even most respectable left-wing economists will admit this to be the case. There's just not a serious argument on this issue.

But there is a political argument. Raising the minimum wage to "help" the poor is part of the good ol-time class-warfare religion. So the dems are wheeling it out before the election to whip up the base. The folks who are pushing this at the top know it will hurt the poor and don't care because the issue has such a nice populist ring. And they need a populist ring because many of them are going to fake being moderates to get elected. They need some red-meat to throw to the moonbats and the minimum wage is ever reliable on that count. It's also an important issue for them because the dems have an increasingly shaky hold an the 'values' voters--especially Catholics. This traditional dem issue appeals to the more traditional values voters as well as the moonbats. So we'll hear a lot about it between now and November.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-26-2006, 08:20 PM

fdf

06-26-2006, 08:36 PM

If anything, they've [the Republicans] passed up the DEMS in centralizing power in the hands of the federal government. . .

I have to take exception there. I think W and the current batch of RINO's in the Senate have blown it big time by overspending and taking power from the States. So we agree there.

But most of the really odious initiatives passed by this congress were based on alliances between the RINOS and the Dems--Prescription drug benefits, campaign finance reform, no-child-left-behind and the current immigration bill come to mind. Every time you see W and Teddy Kennedy having a press conference together on a bill they have worked out together, you are probably looking at the result of the RINO/Dem alliance and the result of every one of them has been bad from a standpoint of overspending and of centralizing power.

W is a BIG-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVE. Note, you have to qualify "conservative" to get to W and the RINOS. You really have to stretch to see W as a conservative at all. By way of contrast, about half to 65% of the Republicans actually believe in smaller government and devolving power to the states. They are conservatives without the qualifier.

OTOH, there is no such thing as a SMALL-GOVERNMENT LIBERAL. The very notion is jolting, no? In general, liberals believe in ever increasing federal government power as a good in and of itself, or, at least, their actions over the past 80 years are indistinguishible from a group of people who fervently hold that belief.

So, to be more accurate, a sizable minority of the Republicans in congress, in alliance with the dems, and with a president that is a big-government conservative have been acting like dems in spending and increasing the size and power of the federal government. Between these two groups (dems and RINOS), they hold a clear majority of the Senate and the House and they hold the White House. The result, they have passed a lot of bad legislation.

But it would have been a lot worse had the dems held Congress and the Whitehouse. As it is, Teddy Kennedy had to compromise away some of his worst ideas to make the alliance with the RINOS work. If the dems ran the show, his worst ideas would be front and center.

footstepsfrom#27

06-26-2006, 10:42 PM

It will also hurt folks at the margin badly. Every study of the effect of mininum wages over many decades has found that it causes increased unemployment amongst the poorest and most marginal people in society. Even most respectable left-wing economists will admit this to be the case. There's just not a serious argument on this issue.
I never stated that raising the minimum wage by itself was a solution to people's problems on the bottom; but it's a necessary start in conjunction with other initiatives. Cite a study that takes into consideration raising the minimum wage in conjunction with multiple other factors required to create solutions for those living on the edge of poverty rather than addressing the issue of increased labor costs soley as the result of wages. The idea that rising wages alone cause businesses to fold is nonsense.

Why?

First, because among the MANY factors that cause businesses to go under...it's declining productivity AND rising wages rather than increasing wages alone that impact hiring. Wages are only one factor. Current economic studies are showing that US businesses are losing money in spite of increased productivity, so this is not the reason people are being laid off.

Second, business doesn't absorb the cost of most wage increases; they pass it along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Hence, the .59 taco becomes .69 instead. The labor markets in general have accepted and adjusted consistently over time for rising wages, but for some reason nobody argues that salaries for OTHER workers should not keep pace with inflation. You never hear anyone saying that wages should be frozen for people making $100,000 or more a year (nor should we do this). It's only those on the bottom of the food chain that they protest making an extra few bucks a month. As I stated earlier, the minimum wage today has fallen 40% in terms of real earning power from where it began, thus it's less than half what it should be if it were tied to inflation. How many of you that make a decent living...say over $35K a year if you're single and $60K if you have a family...would like it if your wages were suddenly rolled back to 1996 levels? That means if you were earning $35,000 today, and tomorrow we scaled your wages back the way the minimum wage has been deflated, your salary now would be $21,000. Could you live with a $14,000 pay cut at that level of income without complaint? The family on a $60K a year salary now makes $36,000...a $24,000 pay cut. We're talking about an extreme shift in living standards, yet that's where those making the minimum are today vs ten years ago.
But there is a political argument. Raising the minimum wage to "help" the poor is part of the good ol-time class-warfare religion. So the dems are wheeling it out before the election to whip up the base. The folks who are pushing this at the top know it will hurt the poor and don't care because the issue has such a nice populist ring. And they need a populist ring because many of them are going to fake being moderates to get elected. They need some red-meat to throw to the moonbats and the minimum wage is ever reliable on that count. It's also an important issue for them because the dems have an increasingly shaky hold an the 'values' voters--especially Catholics. This traditional dem issue appeals to the more traditional values voters as well as the moonbats. So we'll hear a lot about it between now and November.
You're analysis of political motives fails to consider an important fact; the bottom of the socio-economic income ladder ALREADY votes democratic for the most part. Second, this is not about "class warefare" as you put it, but let's just say it is...why are you assuming that this motivation extends only to those on the bottom? If in fact we are talking about class warefare, then those on the other side of this issue are ALSO responsible for that. The asserton that raising the minimum wage will bring "morals" voters...ie; Catholics and other religious conservatives...back into the fold is foolishness. So-called "morals" voters barely recognize this issue on their radar. Abortion and the host of other morals issues associated with the religious vote are not going to suddenly be drowned out by a chorus of people shifting their political allegiance because busboys are now making a buck and hour more than they used to.

The bottom line in this debate is that salaries for other workers have risen over time but the minimum wage has not. So my question to those who want to freeze it indefinitely is this; how long do you want to freeze it at $5.15 an hour? Another 10 years? Twenty? Thirty? According to you, raising the MW will cause businesses to go out of business, so that must mean that we should leave it where it is forever...right? If raising the MW will cause layoffs, then obviously lowering it will cause hiring, right? Let's pay our MW workers $1 an hour...then our economy will be booming; is that what you're contending?

Corporate America is getting ENORMOUS breaks on wages right now, and many companies are eliminating things that are far more costly than labor from unskilled workers, including health insurance and pensions; and those industries in trouble are being beaten by a variety of factors related to globalization, not merely labor costs. Even keeping the minimum wage where it's been is not helping them compete because we are not educating our workforce to compete. It's that simple. This country was built on innovovation from the top down AND the bottom up. But what we've got now is a system where the bottom up innovation and initiative that drove generations of immigrants to strive for success is dissapearing. It's bad for the economy to leave the bottom of the pyramid floundering, and we are already paying the price for the fact that the social services safety nets are more attractive than working for a living for millions of people.

Meck77

06-26-2006, 10:56 PM

fdf

06-26-2006, 11:54 PM

I never stated that raising the minimum wage by itself was a solution to people's problems on the bottom;

Never said you did. What I said is that every empirical study on the subject concludes that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment amongst those who can afford it least, the very poor and first-time job seekers.

but it's a necessary start in conjunction with other initiatives.

Such as??? If, as every study has shown, raising the minimum wage repeatedly and predictably hurts the poor, why do you think that adding more nanny state stuff on top of it will make it better. This is a standard liberal fallacy. One program fails. But it's not the fault of the program, its that there weren't more programs costing more money and employing more bureaucrats. It's bandaids on bandaids. The minimum wage is a bad program. The burden of proof is on those who think they can fix it by layering more welfare state on top of it.

You label it a "necessary start." But how increasing unemployment among the poor a "necessary start" to helping the poor?

The idea that rising wages alone cause businesses to fold is nonsense. . . .

Never said that. You are responding to another poster. At the margin, higher costs will cause some businesses to fold. That's microeconomics 101. But the more insidious effect is that an increased minimum wage prices low productivity workers out of the market, regardless whether the business folds or not--businesses go without an extra worker, they buy equipment instead of hiring etc. This empirical effect of the minimum wage is regular and measurable. Whether it's due to business folding or other causes isn't really very important.

The bottom line in this debate is that salaries for other workers have risen over time but the minimum wage has not. So my question to those who want to freeze it indefinitely is this; how long do you want to freeze it at $5.15 an hour? Another 10 years? Twenty? Thirty? According to you, raising the MW will cause businesses to go out of business, so that must mean that we should leave it where it is forever...right? If raising the MW will cause layoffs, then obviously lowering it will cause hiring, right? Let's pay our MW workers $1 an hour...then our economy will be booming; is that what you're contending?

Your argument is circular. It assumes that a higher minimum wage is good and then concludes that, because other wages have risen faster than the minimum wage, a higher minimum wage is good. But if a higher minimum wage is bad for poor folks, which all the evidence suggests is the case, then your argument is empty.

As I said before, all the empirical evidence is that a higher mimimum wage is a bad thing. At least it's bad if you care about poor people and entry-level workers. You can add whatever welfare state bandaids you want, none of them have ever worked and most of them have been very damaging to their 'beneficiaries.'

Without some evidence that adding other ineffective welfare-state-type programs to a minimum wage will magically transform two bad programs into a good program, your prescription is, sadly, just wishful thinking. But wishful thinking unrelated to reality is what passed the LBJ's War on Poverty. Trillions of dollars later, all we have for that is a government-created underclass, a bunch of IOU's, and a bunch of liberals who feel good about themselves because they did something, even if it was completely ineffective.

You're analysis of political motives fails to consider an important fact; the bottom of the socio-economic income ladder ALREADY votes democratic for the most part.

Yup. But it doesn't always turn out to vote. Poor folks unemployed don't know it's the minimum wage that did put them out of work. They just know they are out of work and would like more money. Similarly, third-generation members of the underclass don't understand that it is the War on Poverty that put them there. They just know it sucks.

The dems play on the understandable resentments arising from the situation these folks find themselves in (even though most of the problems causing the resentment were created by dems). And they ramp this up around election time to up turnout (remember the ad before the 2000 election accusing W of being responsible for those guys that tied the black guy to their car and dragged him behind the car?) Getting poor folks to vote is one of the key elements to dems staying competitive. Dems will stoop to anything to get them out. The minimum wage is one of the old chestnuts.

In any event, my argument was mainly that dems pretending to be moderates to get elected (HRC eg) need some liberal bona-fides to throw to the moonbats. And the minimum wage accomplishes that.

Second, this is not about "class warefare" as you put it, but let's just say it is...why are you assuming that this motivation extends only to those on the bottom? If in fact we are talking about class warefare, then those on the other side of this issue are ALSO responsible for that.

This is a standard ploy. Start an argument and then blame the other guy, see, he's arguing too so it's half his fault. It's the left that's advancing the raised minimum wage. They started the argument. That conservatives are trying to prevent a terrible mistake that will hurt poor people is now "class-warfare." Whatever.

Look at it another way, do you think that the disagreement between most Americans and Osama Bin Laden is equally both side's fault? I don't. One of them bombed the WTC twice, and committed countless other terrorist acts. If we agree on this simple point, then it should be clear that, just because there's a disagreement doesn't mean that both sides are responsible.

The asserton that raising the minimum wage will bring "morals" voters...ie; Catholics and other religious conservatives...back into the fold is foolishness.

Actually, no it isn't. Catholics are a key swing constituency that have strong working class roots. Buzz words like the minimum wage still have a lot of resonance there (and I guarantee you, this issue was focused grouped with Catholic values voters and with southern dems who vote Republican before the national dem party expended a bunch of effort on it). The dems have been steadily losing Catholic voters and Reagan Democrats every election cycle for a long time. This is one of the few issues dems have that still resonates there.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-27-2006, 04:03 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/pledge-monkey.jpg

footstepsfrom#27

06-27-2006, 04:24 AM

Never said you did. What I said is that every empirical study on the subject concludes that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment amongst those who can afford it least, the very poor and first-time job seekers.
Well to begin with, that is false. A Princeton University study published in 1997 by David Card and Alan Krueger found no coresponding decrease in unemployment when the minimum wage was increased, and a subsequent followup analysis of the data by David Neumark and William Wascher, economists normally critical of minimum wage increases, verified their results.

Second, you assert that there is universal agreement among economists that increasing the minimum wage will hurt employment, which is also false. A 2003 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that the number of US economists who agreed that a raise in the minimum wage will negatively impact employment has fallen from 62% in 1990, to 46% who agree with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", while 28% partly agreed and 27% disagreed. So this is not a settled issue as you claim.

The UK has had a national minimum wage law since 1999, and its effects on employment were subject to extensive research by the Low Pay Commission. They concluded that employment was not reduced, productivity was increased, particularly with service related companies.
Such as??? If, as every study has shown, raising the minimum wage repeatedly and predictably hurts the poor, why do you think that adding more nanny state stuff on top of it will make it better. This is a standard liberal fallacy. One program fails. But it's not the fault of the program, its that there weren't more programs costing more money and employing more bureaucrats. It's bandaids on bandaids. The minimum wage is a bad program. The burden of proof is on those who think they can fix it by layering more welfare state on top of it.
You assume I'm talking about adding failed government programs as a solution. I'm not. Not every government program is a failure, particularly those that involve partnership in the private sector. I've been on record here in pointing out that one of the best federal programs in the country is the US Treasury run CDFI Fund, which bankrolls Community Development Financial Institutions. This program returns an astonishing 2700% in private investment dollars, yet the Bush administration has been steadily trying to destroy it for several years by mercilessly slashing it's budget. CDFI's are not just a success, they are a HUGE success, and they invest in the poorest urban communities in America with startling results. CDFI's are not welfare giveaways either. They empower people with financial education, access to credit, business loans and education, investments in infrastructure and capital to financial institutions that target salvaging people with principals of capitalism rather than social welfare.
You label it a "necessary start." But how increasing unemployment among the poor a "necessary start" to helping the poor?
I've shown your argument there to be in doubt, but additionally, it should be obvious that when people have more money to spend, they spend it. This stimulates comsumer driven growth in the economy, allows for the development of small businesses within urban communities that otherwise wouldn't be there, and helps deter people from giving up and merely dropping into welfare or illigitimate forms of making money.
At the margin, higher costs will cause some businesses to fold. That's microeconomics 101.
Capitalism functions best when there is a delicate balance between labor and management. The right seems to assume that there is some kind of holy grail of capitalism that says businesses have an inherrent RIGHT to exist. They don't. They have a right to exist if they can survive in the market, and if that market includes as a neccessary construct, the idea of fairness to the worker, and if that fact creates a situation where some businesses fail, then they do not deserve to exist in the first place. I could just as easily suggest that China's use of child slave labor allows them to be growing their economy at a 20% pace, (though that would grossly oversimply the truth, which includes multiple other factors) and to force them to stop this practice by boycotting their goods will cause them to lose competive advantage. I could suggest that the wholesale destruction of environmental resources and the usurpation of EPA laws is a good thing since it keeps businesses in business. That's not the point of capitalism...to keep every form and kind of business in existence. Business has no more inherrent right to make a profit than a worker has to earn a decent living. The two need not be mutually exclusive, but the current advantage is weighing heavily on the side of management, something bound to only increase with Bush's swinging door immigration policy that will soon allow the equivilent of virtual slave wages for millions of illegal aliens, thus undercutting American workers further.
Your argument is circular. It assumes that a higher minimum wage is good and then concludes that, because other wages have risen faster than the minimum wage, a higher minimum wage is good. But if a higher minimum wage is bad for poor folks, which all the evidence suggests is the case, then your argument is empty.
Actually your argument is circular, assuming incorrectly that economists agree on this issue, which they don't, and second...it isn't that "other wages have risen faster than the minimum wage" as you put it. Other wages have risen and the minimum wage has fallen. An inflation rate of approximately 4% annually has created an environment where today's MW worker grosses about $3.48 an hour before taxes in 1996 dollars, a figure that is down 40% compared to an increase in other wages. If you do the math the minimum wage is so far behind the rest of the market, that it's less than half what it should be. This does not even take into consideratin that minimum wage workers are the least likely to have employer supplied health insurance, a fact that puts them still further behind, and also forces many working poor to go on welfare simply to get health insurance through government programs they couldn't get if they were working. That's BAD policy.
As I said before, all the empirical evidence is that a higher mimimum wage is a bad thing. At least it's bad if you care about poor people and entry-level workers. You can add whatever welfare state bandaids you want, none of them have ever worked and most of them have been very damaging to their 'beneficiaries.
And as I said, you're wrong. And please don't suggest that corporate America and specifically the GOP are baulking at upping the minimum wage because they care about poor people. That's a real insult to my intelligence. If that were the case corporate America would be calling for Bush to enforce immigration laws instead of opening the floodgates to illegal aliens that will wind up working for pennies on the dollar compared to what their US counterparts can work for. Corporate America is all about returning value to the shareholder, not empowering American workers to dig themselves out of poverty.
Without some evidence that adding other ineffective welfare-state-type programs to a minimum wage will magically transform two bad programs into a good program, your prescription is, sadly, just wishful thinking.
Nowhere did you see me advocate adding welfare type programs, so let's dump that idea now...OK?
Yup. But it doesn't always turn out to vote. Poor folks unemployed don't know it's the minimum wage that did put them out of work. They just know they are out of work and would like more money. Similarly, third-generation members of the underclass don't understand that it is the War on Poverty that put them there. They just know it sucks.
The problem with your argument is that we have had a decrease in real dollars and earning power over the last ten years, so according to your model, NOBODY earning minimum wage should be out of work. You in effect, have had it your way for ten years, yet there are large numbers of inner city dwellers who cannot get jobs, partly because there are not enough businesses in many urban areas that many of these people can even get to by public transportation since many don't own cars. Drive down through the southern sector of Dallas and you will see what I mean. You can go for miles along main arteries and barely see a fast food joint. Do the same thing in Tulsa Oklahoma...you'll go for miles and miles with barely a single thing to attract industry. The government both federal and state has to find ways to attract industry to poor urban areas...one way that has been found to work is through NEZ's...Neighboorhood Empowerment Zones. They attract private investment through incentives like waiver of fees, tax breaks, etc...
The dems play on the understandable resentments arising from the situation these folks find themselves in (even though most of the problems causing the resentment were created by dems). And they ramp this up around election time to up turnout (remember the ad before the 2000 election accusing W of being responsible for those guys that tied the black guy to their car and dragged him behind the car?) Getting poor folks to vote is one of the key elements to dems staying competitive. Dems will stoop to anything to get them out. The minimum wage is one of the old chestnuts.
And I guess the GOP doesn't try to get out their constituents with equally disgusting tactics...right? Does flag burning and the dead on arrival gay marriage constitutional ammendment ring a bell? Both parties use whatever they can to motivate their constituents...so what's your point?...that poor people are inherently stupid and thus more gullible...hence more likely to "fall for it" and actually vote? That's pretty condescending IMO.
In any event, my argument was mainly that dems pretending to be moderates to get elected (HRC eg) need some liberal bona-fides to throw to the moonbats. And the minimum wage accomplishes that.
George Bush is pretending to be a conservative...tit for tat.
This is a standard ploy. Start an argument and then blame the other guy, see, he's arguing too so it's half his fault. It's the left that's advancing the raised minimum wage. They started the argument. That conservatives are trying to prevent a terrible mistake that will hurt poor people is now "class-warfare."
So according to you, only those who want the minimum wage raised are engaging in this "class warefare" (your words not mine). But the GOP and corporate America is graciously and humanely looking out for the poor as their champion while the evil DEMS try to hurt the poor and buy their vote. Gimme a break. The motives of big business are crystal clear here, and suggesting that only those people who are lobbying for the minimum wage to simply do what the rest of the wage scale is doing are engaging in some kind of dissengenuous poltical argument is the heighth of hypocritical arrogance.
Look at it another way, do you think that the disagreement between most Americans and Osama Bin Laden is equally both side's fault? I don't. One of them bombed the WTC twice, and committed countless other terrorist acts. If we agree on this simple point, then it should be clear that, just because there's a disagreement doesn't mean that both sides are responsible.
Ehhh...not exactly the same thing here; equating murdering thousands of innocents with trying to help people in need is ridiculous. Choose another analogy. Bottom line; your argument is nonsense. If two sides partake in the political process to get what they want then BOTH are equally responsible for the process YOU called "class warefare".
Actually, no it isn't. Catholics are a key swing constituency that have strong working class roots. Buzz words like the minimum wage still have a lot of resonance there (and I guarantee you, this issue was focused grouped with Catholic values voters and with southern dems who vote Republican before the national dem party expended a bunch of effort on it). The dems have been steadily losing Catholic voters and Reagan Democrats every election cycle for a long time. This is one of the few issues dems have that still resonates there.
Dude...I've been an evangelical for almost 30 years and was once a caucus leader in the GOP, so please don't lecture me about what motivates the religious right. Your arguement is absurd and completely without merit. Catholics who vote on morals issues have ONE thing uppermost in their minds; the battle over abortion...just like the so callled religious right.

BTW...I'm not a DEM or a REP...I hate 'em both. But I'm not going to let you trot this foolishness out here without calling it like I see it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-27-2006, 04:45 AM

Well to begin with, that is false. A Princeton University study published in 1997 by David Card and Alan Krueger found no coresponding decrease in unemployment when the minimum wage was increased, and a subsequent followup analysis of the data by David Neumark and William Wascher, economists normally critical of minimum wage increases, verified their results.

Furthermore, On Clinton's watch, the minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, increasing wages for 10 million workers, AND unemployment was nearly the lowest in three decades. Unemployment went from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent in March 2000 -- nearly the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years.

These stats alone are sufficient to expose fdf's argument as a crock.

55CrushEm

06-27-2006, 07:16 AM

Furthermore, On Clinton's watch, the minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, increasing wages for 10 million workers, AND unemployment was nearly the lowest in three decades. Unemployment went from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent in March 2000 -- nearly the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years.

These stats alone are sufficient to expose fdf's argument as a crock.

Oh, for crying out loud.....this does NOT prove that raising the minimum wage CAUSED the decrease in unemployment.....they are 2 separate facts with no link.

That's like saying, "Yeah, I went to the Broncos game on Sunday.....and they won......so they won because I was there."

footstepsfrom#27

06-27-2006, 07:22 AM

Oh, for crying out loud.....this does NOT prove that raising the minimum wage CAUSED the decrease in unemployment.....they are 2 separate facts with no link.

That's like saying, "Yeah, I went to the Broncos game on Sunday.....and they won......so they won because I was there."
I didn't hear him say it was the sole cause or evan "a" cause. The point is an increase in the minumum wage did not lead to a coresponding drop in the employment rate, which was the idea that fdf was trying to prove...quite the opposite in fact.

55CrushEm

06-27-2006, 07:30 AM

Corporate America is all about returning value to the shareholder, not empowering American workers to dig themselves out of poverty.

Who said it was Corporate America's responsibility to dig poor people out of poverty? That's a ridiculous notion. Try reading a book called "The Goal"....it's required reading at any good business school. The goal of every business is simple.....to make money....period. And of course they have an obligation to the shareholders....those are the people who OWN the company.

Wouldn't you agree that it is an INDIVIDUAL's responsibility to dig themselves out of poverty? If you aren't happy with your wage.....go get an education, and get a better job. And don't tell me it can't be afforded.....ANYONE can get stafford loans.

55CrushEm

06-27-2006, 07:33 AM

I didn't hear him say it was the sole cause or evan "a" cause. The point is an increase in the minumum wage did not lead to a coresponding drop in the employment rate, which was the idea that fdf was trying to prove...quite the opposite in fact.

Perhaps.....perhaps not.....there were obviously many other factors that contributed to the rise in employment. But no one here has proved or disproved that BY ITSELF, raising the minimum wage would lead to a flux in employment.

I do know that a VAST majority of businesses in the country are very small. And yes, logic would suggest that a forced increase in the minimum wage would be more likely to affect them in a negative way, rather than other large businesses.

footstepsfrom#27

06-27-2006, 07:56 AM

Who said it was Corporate America's responsibility to dig poor people out of poverty? That's a ridiculous notion. Try reading a book called "The Goal"....it's required reading at any good business school. The goal of every business is simple.....to make money....period. And of course they have an obligation to the shareholders....those are the people who OWN the company.
Eh...read a little closer please. I never said it was corporate America's responsibililty to dig poor people out of poverty, because it's not. I was responding to fdf who indicated that business was interested in keeping the minimum wage from increasing out of a compassionate interest in helping poor people from slipping futher into economic ruin rather than their own interests.
Wouldn't you agree that it is an INDIVIDUAL's responsibility to dig themselves out of poverty? If you aren't happy with your wage.....go get an education, and get a better job. And don't tell me it can't be afforded.....ANYONE can get stafford loans.
First, I'm not referencing me here; I make 6 figures a year. Second, getting a Stafford loan is no longer a sure thing with education cuts, and in any case a Stafford loan is worthless if you don't have the requisete skill set to succeed in college. Pay a visit to an urban high school and then tell me how easy it is to overcome what is essentially a worthless "education" in order to make it in college.

Second, a college degree in the current economic climate is no gaurantee of financial success. We have tens of thousands of engineers who can't get work. Forget Stafford loans...let's talk about poor and minority applicants being victimized by predatory lending policies, inadequate access to business capital by virtue of red-lining and other discriminatory practices and the government...local, state and national...refusing to invest in the infrastructure of inner cities but willing to bankroll billionaires with taxpayer money for sports arenas and other forms of corporate wellfare.

Or is it just the poor you think get government handouts?

footstepsfrom#27

06-27-2006, 08:01 AM

Perhaps.....perhaps not.....there were obviously many other factors that contributed to the rise in employment. But no one here has proved or disproved that BY ITSELF, raising the minimum wage would lead to a flux in employment.
It's not my intention to prove anything, only to dissprove what fdf said...that ALL economists agree that a raise in the minimum wage would lead to falling employment.
I do know that a VAST majority of businesses in the country are very small. And yes, logic would suggest that a forced increase in the minimum wage would be more likely to affect them in a negative way, rather than other large businesses.
As I stated earlier, businesses large and small pass on the cost of overhead to their customers. There is no inherrant "right" to exist apart from a businesses ability to handle the competition of the market. Business has no more right to make a profit than the worker's it employs have a right to a fair wage. It's the market that should dictate, but the current standards have left the market forces firmly allied against the workers on the bottom of the wage scale and in favor of management over labor. As I said, capitalism functions best when there is a delicate balance preserving the integrity of both management and labor, not one over the other.

alkemical

06-27-2006, 08:03 AM

this won't matter once mexamericanada is up and running.

55CrushEm

06-27-2006, 08:10 AM

First, I'm not referencing me here; I make 6 figures a year.
As do I.....I wasn't implying that it was YOU personally....I was referring to people in general.

Second, getting a Stafford loan is no longer a sure thing
It's as close to a sure thing as you can get....besides getting laid in Vegas.

Pay a visit to an urban high school and then tell me how easy it is to overcome what is essentially a worthless "education" in order to make it in college.
Agreed that the public school system in America stinks.....but I guess I'm of the opinion that education is also what you make of it. I went to public school in Anytown, Maine......more than 80% of my graduating class did NOT go to college....but IMO, life is about choices....and you have to be held accountable for those choices. I CHOSE to go to college....and it paid off.

Second, a college degree in the current economic climate is no gaurantee of financial success.
Obviously....there are NO guarantees in life. But clearly someone with a college education has a FAR, FAR greater chance at financial success than someone without....

Or is it just the poor you think get government handouts?
Clearly not.....the government subsidizes everything and everyone under the sun (unfortunately)....because they want a say in everything. If you want to think of subsidies as an "investment", and I don't think this is the best terminology to use....then wouldn't you invest in something that is going to give you the best "return" (and "return" is loosely defined, and an entirely different topic)?

bendog

06-27-2006, 08:53 AM

this won't matter once mexamericanada is up and running.
I'd say give em Texas, and it's villiage idgit, if they'd just stop invading, but in the end it'd only make the border longer.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-27-2006, 03:14 PM

I didn't hear him say it was the sole cause or evan "a" cause. The point is an increase in the minumum wage did not lead to a coresponding drop in the employment rate, which was the idea that fdf was trying to prove...quite the opposite in fact.

Exactly.

God, doesn't 55crushEm ever get embarrassed about the fact that he needs to have other people's points explained to him in this manner?

:rofl:

55CrushEm

06-28-2006, 05:47 AM

I didn't hear him say it was the sole cause or evan "a" cause. The point is an increase in the minumum wage did not lead to a coresponding drop in the employment rate, which was the idea that fdf was trying to prove...quite the opposite in fact.

Fine.....you want to get technical....he never actually said those exact words. But why don't you try reading post #32 again.....in the same breath, he says: minimum wage went up, and employment went up.....

You telling me that he wasn't implying a correlation? If not, then his post was pointless (but that's no surprise).....

footstepsfrom#27

06-28-2006, 06:12 AM

Fine.....you want to get technical....he never actually said those exact words. But why don't you try reading post #32 again.....in the same breath, he says: minimum wage went up, and employment went up.....

You telling me that he wasn't implying a correlation? If not, then his post was pointless (but that's no surprise).....
I don't know what he was implying, but the researchers drew a correlation and suggested the "possibility" that increased wages assisted in retaining workers who might have left otherwise, thus affecting the unemployment rate in a positive direction. It's a minor point however. I'm not arguing for an increased MW in order to lower the unemployment rate.

55CrushEm

06-28-2006, 06:14 AM

I'm not arguing for an increased MW in order to lower the unemployment rate.

Then we agree.....

broncocalijohn

06-28-2006, 11:11 AM

Add the fact that there are millions of eager illegal immigrants ready to step in and work at less than the minimum wage. Houston we have a problem.
Meck, that would be the only way to have an increase in minimum wage is for the real american or legal workers at that level. I am not necesarilly for or against a small increase i just glad there is a base for a minimum wage or all the big wig companies would hire illegals at $3.75 an hour.

broncocalijohn

06-28-2006, 11:18 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/pledge-monkey.jpg

What a bunch of crap. lets go over the point of since minimum wage wont go up, you cant pay down your mortgage. They dont mix. Havent seen too many minimum wage jobs having a home mortgage. And if they did, how did they qualify for a loan. Sorry LABF, nice try. WHo cares if you can INLIST at 42? What is the problem with that if someone wants to enlist at an older age. My opinion, keeps the draft farther away. Servicemen cant get their vote processed? Blame the demos in Florida and Pennsylvania that didnt want their votes to count in last big election.

NOLA Bronco

06-28-2006, 11:29 AM

Why shouldn't the minimum wage increase by the same % as the standard of living increase conrgess recieves?

I don't think they should be getting $15 bucks an hour, but as the cost of living increases, so should the wage rates. Next time you wait in line for 30 minutes at Mcdonalds ask yourself, would you pay $15 more cents for that Burger if it hekoed bring in more workers?

BTW - no such thing as minimum wage in NOLA right now. Burger King was offering a $6k signing bonus if you agreed to sign up for 1 year....

55CrushEm

06-28-2006, 11:32 AM

I don't think they should be getting $15 bucks an hour, but as the cost of living increases, so should the wage rates.

Ideallly, that would be nice.....however, I worked for a large, $1.8 billion publically traded company....and for a two year period there were NO raises....period....not for ANYONE....not even cost of living adjustments.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-28-2006, 11:52 AM

Ideallly, that would be nice.....however, I worked for a large, $1.8 billion publically traded company....and for a two year period there were NO raises....period....not for ANYONE....not even cost of living adjustments.

That didn't sit too well with you did it? Imagine going 10 years without any raise.

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

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8654/mw5ql.png
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

.

55CrushEm

06-28-2006, 11:54 AM

That didn't sit too well with you did it? Imagine going 10 years without any raise.
Never said it did....what I am saying is that business and the free market should determine wages....not the freaking government.

As I said before, if someone doesn't like their "minimum wage"....go get an education, to get a better paying job.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-28-2006, 11:59 AM

Never said it did....what I am saying is that business and the free market should determine wages....not the freaking government.
As I said before, if someone doesn't like their "minimum wage"....go get an education, to get a better paying job.

Ah, you're asking 150 million people to attend and pay for college? What's the guarantee of getting a good job (or any job) if all these people would do that?

55CrushEm

06-28-2006, 12:07 PM

Ah, you're asking 150 million people to attend and pay for college? What's the guarantee of getting a good job (or any job) if all these people would do that?
I already discussed this with FS27.....of course, there are no guarantees....but you can't deny that it surely exponentially increases your chances of getting a higher paying job.

Why do we all go to college? To be able to get a higher paying job, to support a better lifestyle, or raise a family, or whatever.....but it IS to get a higher paying job.

And virtually ANYONE can get Stafford loans.....yes, as much as it sucks to mortgage your future to go to school....that's what many do. (including myself, as I did not come from wealth).

footstepsfrom#27

06-28-2006, 12:12 PM

Then we agree.....
How do you figure that?

cbs1177

06-28-2006, 12:17 PM

Also here in Arkansas I rent a no frills 2 bedroom I bath aparment for 315/month. .

Looks like I am moving again. This time I moving into a two bedroom I bathroom house for 200/month. I am watching it while my godfather lives in his new dig at a retirement village type deal. So mainly I am upkeeping it. I am excited bigger and cheaper rent.

55CrushEm

06-28-2006, 12:18 PM

How do you figure that?
Look at the comment I referenced......we agree because I ALSO don't advocate a higher minimum wage to lower unemployment.

cbs1177

06-28-2006, 12:19 PM

Arkansas. I've never been there. We might have to roll OF1 thru there sometime. Been meaning to get her all the way to FL. Got any cold PBR that way?

Sure Meck you can make a pitstop here. Even plug rv into house. Mr. weston the house I am moving into used to have a RV from California come through there sometimes. Relatives of his passing thru.

footstepsfrom#27

06-28-2006, 12:23 PM

I already discussed this with FS27.....of course, there are no guarantees....but you can't deny that it surely exponentially increases your chances of getting a higher paying job.

Why do we all go to college? To be able to get a higher paying job, to support a better lifestyle, or raise a family, or whatever.....but it IS to get a higher paying job.

And virtually ANYONE can get Stafford loans.....yes, as much as it sucks to mortgage your future to go to school....that's what many do. (including myself, as I did not come from wealth).
You're really dancing around the issue, which is not the relative merits of a college degree. The point is simple; the minimum wage is the only area of the wage ladder than has failed to move at all over the last decade. Theoretically your point that the market, not the government, should dictate wages looks good on the surface. But reality suggests that some government intervention is neccessary. If business didn't need prodding we wouldn't have had to adopt federal anti-discrimination laws, EPA guidelines, building codes, laws related to sexual harrassment, etc... When the MW is so low that people choose welfare for the medical benefits, it's costing taxpayers more to support that, and it's costing business in unseen ways through loss of productivity.

I support a two-tiered MW...one for minors working after school or summer jobs, and one for adults trying to survive. As for going back to school, try raising a couple of kids and paying for daycare while you're in school on $5 an hour and see how far you get. The problem here is that we're wasting our strongest resource, HUMAN resources that are left out of the American dream because they can't gain enough traction to make a move up the ladder.

footstepsfrom#27

06-28-2006, 12:24 PM

Look at the comment I referenced......we agree because I ALSO don't advocate a higher minimum wage to lower unemployment.
The goal of a higher MW isn't to lower unemployment. It's to bring the bottom of the food chain into line with where the rest of the economy has moved. We may agree on that point, but we still disagree on raising it or not.

55CrushEm

06-28-2006, 12:26 PM

The goal of a higher MW isn't to lower unemployment. It's to bring the bottom of the food chain into line with where the rest of the economy has moved. We may agree on that point, but we still disagree on raising it or not.
Fine.

cbs1177

06-28-2006, 01:34 PM

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

See as I said before I think minwage should be left up the states b/c of the different cost of living. Most higher cost states are already praticing that.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-28-2006, 02:36 PM

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

See as I said before I think minwage should be left up the states b/c of the different cost of living. Most higher cost states are already praticing that.
I don't know where you get that. Half the country has federal law as their minimum. And for the states that have higher minimums, some are just barely higher.

broncocalijohn

06-28-2006, 04:21 PM

That didn't sit too well with you did it? Imagine going 10 years without any raise. .

If you are making minimum wage for 10 years str8, then you probably dont realize what a raise is. Stop coddling the minimum wage earner as they are the back bone of the die hard worker of America. Entry level job and that is what min. wage job is. If you are keeping that same job for 10 years, you are a LOSER!

Bronco_Beerslug

06-28-2006, 04:36 PM

If you are making minimum wage for 10 years str8, then you probably dont realize what a raise is. Stop coddling the minimum wage earner as they are the back bone of the die hard worker of America. Entry level job and that is what min. wage job is. If you are keeping that same job for 10 years, you are a LOSER!

Still don't get it do you? Only the arrogant arses of this country hold your views, "f**k em I got mine". You need to do a little research and see just who is earning minimum wage these days.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-28-2006, 04:53 PM

Never said it did....what I am saying is that business and the free market should determine wages....not the freaking government.

:oyvey:

How idiotic.

This would be like having a football game with no refs.

Almost as funny as Bush's policy of letting polluting industries police themselves.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-28-2006, 04:57 PM

....what I am saying is that business and the free market should determine wages....not the freaking government.

This is exactly the sort of policy that has wrought the destruction of the middle class and has thrown open the door to the massive illegal immigration we are experiencing in America today.

NOLA Bronco

06-28-2006, 05:43 PM

Never said it did....what I am saying is that business and the free market should determine wages....not the freaking government.

As I said before, if someone doesn't like their "minimum wage"....go get an education, to get a better paying job.

Let businesses determine the fair wages? What would prevent them from colluding and keeping them low? Oh yeah, Government laws. These people have no one standing up for their worker rights but the government. The sandwich slinger at Subway doesn't have a union protecting him.

Some people don't have options. Regardless, we need people at minumum wage jobs for this country to work. But minumum should at least be a decent wage.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-28-2006, 07:40 PM

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060623/bagley.gif

Raider Bill

06-28-2006, 09:27 PM

footstepsfrom#27

06-28-2006, 09:31 PM

Stop coddling the minimum wage earner as they are the back bone of the die hard worker of America. Entry level job and that is what min. wage job is. If you are keeping that same job for 10 years, you are a LOSER!
This is the second time you've made that stupid statement.

I assume by "coddling" you mean suggesting that they no longer work for half as much as they should be so you can save a dime on your hamburger. Only a true loser would suggest that someone mired in poverty and discouragement is being "coddled" becuase they'd like to make enough money to adequately feed and clothe their chldren wiith the dignity of paying their own way, or be able to afford to live somewhere where they don't live in fear of death or violence every waking moment. You probably went to a nice suburban high school where kids were actually expected to learn, weren't allowed to urinate in the hallways, have sex in the classrooms or roam the halls in armed gangs of hoodlums who bring weapons to school. Maybe you even had teachers who cared about you or possibly even two parents at home. Most kids growing up in high crime, drug infested inner city areas have none of those things. For a lot of them, their graduation comes the day they escape the hood with their lives, because a lot of them don't. College isn't even something they can imagine, and if they could, it's doubtful anyone else in their lives would encourage them to hold that vision.

Take a trip down here to urban south Dallas where we have the highest rate of violent crime in America and are also #1 in murders in the US. Check out the crack houses, prostitutes patroling accross the street from elementary schools and armed thugs who will kill you as soon as look at you. There are places here where the cops don't even go into becaus they're scared to be there. Then thank your lucky stars and God above that you didn't have to be born a "loser" like all these people are.

BTW...I noticed you're self employed. Good. Care to guess who the most active group of entrepreneurs are in America? If you guessed people who live in suburbia...sorry...that's wrong. They are the people we've marginalized at the bottom of society with an unlivable wage...and in response to that Black and Hispanic women are creating businesses nearly 8 times faster than the rest of the market as a whole, faster yet if you isolate them statistically and compare them only against white males. That's right buddy...the people MOST OFTEN referred to as LOSERS by people like you are building entrepreneurial vision EIGHT TIMES faster, and that is without access to capital infusion from banks and financial institutions, without vertical networking relationships in high net worth markets, without formal business education and without adequate physical or emotional infrastructure around them. The LOSERS you speak of are kicking the white middle class's male's *** when it comes to creating new businesses, and they are not only creating them faster, but are generating sales revenues and hiring people significantly faster as well. These LOSERS generate $147 Billion a year for the US economy, and employ 1.4 million people, and they do all this with the assistance of a grand total of ONE bank in the entire United States owned by black females.

Wonder what they could do if we actually tried to empower their success instead of deny them opportunity?

footstepsfrom#27

06-28-2006, 09:36 PM

This is a ridiculous argument, who the hell is trying to support a family on 5.15/hour. I could get a job tomorrow, requiring no experience or specialized training, paying 2 1/2 times that, minimum.

The McDonalds is just going to make due with one less pimple faced kid behind the grill.
There are lots of adults trying to do exactly that.

News flash...there are people in some industries in this economy with Masters degrees who have lost their jobs and are overqualified for the $12.50 an hour job you're speaking of. In fact they can't get hired by WalMart because they have to MUCH education. And no...you cannot make $12.50 an hour in the vast majority of places today with nothing but a high school diploma.

Raider Bill

06-28-2006, 11:21 PM

There are lots of adults trying to do exactly that.

[QUOTE]News flash...there are people in some industries in this economy with Masters degrees who have lost their jobs and are overqualified for the $12.50 an hour job you're speaking of. In fact they can't get hired by WalMart because they have to MUCH education.

If that's the case that what is raising the minimum wage gonna do for them?

What do they have to do with this discussion?

And no...you cannot make $12.50 an hour in the vast majority of places today with nothing but a high school diploma.

I call bull****. The only people making 5.15 an hour and staying there are not advancing beyond an entry level menial job. I passed a gas station on the way home that was paying 10 bucks an hour for attendents.

Raider Bill

06-28-2006, 11:24 PM

You're just wrong

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents."

Raider Bill

06-28-2006, 11:26 PM

Poor people are not poor because of low wages. For the most part, they're poor because of low productivity, and wages are connected to productivity. The effect of minimum wages is that of causing unemployment among low-skilled workers. If an employer must pay $5.15 an hour, plus mandated fringes that might bring the employment cost of a worker to $7 an hour, does it pay him to hire a person who is so unfortunate as to have skills that permit him to produce only $4 worth of value per hour? Most employers would view hiring such a person as a losing economic proposition.

broncocalijohn

06-28-2006, 11:48 PM

This is the second time you've made that stupid statement.

I assume by "coddling" you mean suggesting that they no longer work for half as much as they should be so you can save a dime on your hamburger. Only a true loser would suggest that someone mired in poverty and discouragement is being "coddled" becuase they'd like to make enough money to adequately feed and clothe their chldren wiith the dignity of paying their own way, or be able to afford to live somewhere where they don't live in fear of death or violence every waking moment. You probably went to a nice suburban high school where kids were actually expected to learn, weren't allowed to urinate in the hallways, have sex in the classrooms or roam the halls in armed gangs of hoodlums who bring weapons to school. Maybe you even had teachers who cared about you or possibly even two parents at home. Most kids growing up in high crime, drug infested inner city areas have none of those things. For a lot of them, their graduation comes the day they escape the hood with their lives, because a lot of them don't. College isn't even something they can imagine, and if they could, it's doubtful anyone else in their lives would encourage them to hold that vision.

Take a trip down here to urban south Dallas where we have the highest rate of violent crime in America and are also #1 in murders in the US. Check out the crack houses, prostitutes patroling accross the street from elementary schools and armed thugs who will kill you as soon as look at you. There are places here where the cops don't even go into becaus they're scared to be there. Then thank your lucky stars and God above that you didn't have to be born a "loser" like all these people are.

BTW...I noticed you're self employed. Good. Care to guess who the most active group of entrepreneurs are in America? If you guessed people who live in suburbia...sorry...that's wrong. They are the people we've marginalized at the bottom of society with an unlivable wage...and in response to that Black and Hispanic women are creating businesses nearly 8 times faster than the rest of the market as a whole, faster yet if you isolate them statistically and compare them only against white males. That's right buddy...the people MOST OFTEN referred to as LOSERS by people like you are building entrepreneurial vision EIGHT TIMES faster, and that is without access to capital infusion from banks and financial institutions, without vertical networking relationships in high net worth markets, without formal business education and without adequate physical or emotional infrastructure around them. The LOSERS you speak of are kicking the white middle class's male's *** when it comes to creating new businesses, and they are not only creating them faster, but are generating sales revenues and hiring people significantly faster as well. These LOSERS generate $147 Billion a year for the US economy, and employ 1.4 million people, and they do all this with the assistance of a grand total of ONE bank in the entire United States owned by black females.

Wonder what they could do if we actually tried to empower their success instead of deny them opportunity?

CONGRATS TO THEM! Those that I say are losers are the ones NOT STARTING THEIR OWN BUSINESSES! I dont need to see the worst of our country to know their are people in poverty. I SPEAK the truth and am forthcoming on it. I guess in your eyes their are no losers in the USA. I see the losers. The guys that skipped school, did drugs, etc. Same guys you want to coddle. Tell me how much of a "winner" of a person with two kids and working at a minimum wage job for the last 8 years and single. mazing how people can NOT have kids until they are married and actually strive for a good job with or without a college education. I live where boat people barely came with anything in their pockets but now are very successful citizens/residents. Never see them have trouble. But you keep making excuses for those that "just scrape by" for the last 10 years. I wonder what they did to get into that position. Hurry come up with some more excuses on their plight.The coddling is done by the people like you to the down trodden not them asking to be coddled. They dont need to ask if you are handing them the goods. Amazing how you translate "losers" to black and hispanics which I never stated. Seems we have another liberal that has the racist tone of "I know whites are better than them so I need to feel less guilty and find excuses for them".

Taco John

06-29-2006, 01:23 AM

Ah, you're asking 150 million people to attend and pay for college? What's the guarantee of getting a good job (or any job) if all these people would do that?

There are no guarantees. Just opportunities.

broncocalijohn

06-29-2006, 01:36 AM

There are no guarantees. Just opportunities.

You might have to explain that one TJ to a few on here. WHAT, no handouts? Ill keep looking to find one.

footstepsfrom#27

06-29-2006, 03:39 AM

CONGRATS TO THEM! Those that I say are losers are the ones NOT STARTING THEIR OWN BUSINESSES! I dont need to see the worst of our country to know their are people in poverty. I SPEAK the truth and am forthcoming on it. I guess in your eyes their are no losers in the USA. I see the losers. The guys that skipped school, did drugs, etc. Same guys you want to coddle.
No, you nitwit...the people who you're talking about aren't working at all...they're selling dope and stealing car stereos. People who work for a living aren't losers becuase they make low wages; they're more often simply stuck in a situation where they never got the educational skills to command a higher wage. Pretty simple unless you've got blinders on.
Tell me how much of a "winner" of a person with two kids and working at a minimum wage job for the last 8 years and single.
I look at more than what somebody makes on their paycheck, unlike you. A single woman working two jobs to supprort her kids without any help from a deadbeat dad is a winner in my book whether she's making $5.15 or $80K a year.
mazing how people can NOT have kids until they are married and actually strive for a good job with or without a college education.
So everyone who had kids after marriage is doing great huh? Right.
I live where boat people barely came with anything in their pockets but now are very successful citizens/residents. Never see them have trouble.
That's because you were't watching. They have major problems, but they've discovered how to pull together and help each other. They live 15 people in one appartment, share a car, learn Enlish and work 80 hours a week for nothing till they make it. What's your point? That hard work pays off? Fine...I never said it didn't. What's that got to do with the fact that people on the bottom haven't had a pay raise in 10 years and you get to enjoy the benefits of abusing them by saving a quarter on your sandwhich?
But you keep making excuses for those that "just scrape by" for the last 10 years. I wonder what they did to get into that position. Hurry come up with some more excuses on their plight.The coddling is done by the people like you to the down trodden not them asking to be coddled. They dont need to ask if you are handing them the goods.
How is it "making excuses" to point out that wages have fallen 40% for the poorest of the poor over the last ten years while yours have risen? You're a typical American aristocratic snob who thinks everything you did to succeed was all about you. "Coddling" according to you means paying someone a decent wage. What somebody did or didn't do to get into that position doesn't change the fact that they can't dig out of it if you're paying them 40% less than they should be making.
Amazing how you translate "losers" to black and hispanics which I never stated. Seems we have another liberal that has the racist tone of "I know whites are better than them so I need to feel less guilty and find excuses for them".
Hey moron...try hooked on phonics. I'm not the one who thinks people on the bottom are losers; that's your take. I'm the one pointing out they're not, you idiot. If you learn to focus on reading comprehension you'll see that I stated that the people most marginalized and most lilkely representing the bottom of the wage scale are minorities, especially minority women. Care to challenge that? I'm pointng out ways that they are succeeding on their own in spite of attempts by people like you to make sure they don't. But go ahead and play the race card. It's the first resort of a weak argument.

alkemical

06-29-2006, 07:34 AM

W*GS

06-29-2006, 08:28 AM

Regardless, we need people at minumum wage jobs for this country to work. But minumum should at least be a decent wage.

What number is that?

alkemical

06-29-2006, 08:32 AM

What number is that?

Only non smokers would get that number.

NOLA Bronco

06-29-2006, 08:40 AM

What number is that?

I don't know, but certainly more than $5.15 before taxes. Enough that some of those people can get off food stamps and out of public housing. Enough that after a few years of hard work, maybe they have been able to save a tiny little bit.

By keeping the minumum wage low, while living gets more and more expensive, only increases the difference between rich and poor and the classes in this country. Is that a good thing?

W*GS

06-29-2006, 08:42 AM

I don't know, but certainly more than $5.15 before taxes.

How much more?

NOLA Bronco

06-29-2006, 08:48 AM

How much more?

Like I said, I don't know.

Surely people who study economic trends, social issues, and the low wage earner would be able to come up with a number that makes more sense. Those are not my areas of expertise. We study everything in this country, so surely someone has already looked into it.

You have to admit, congress giving themselves a cost of living increase 8 times in the last 10 years, while not giving a standard of living increase to the minimum wage worker is crazy. Who feels the effects of higher gas prices or a higher price for milk? The guy already making well over $100 grand, or the person making $5.15 an hour?

alkemical

06-29-2006, 08:50 AM

roughly 4-8 cents on ever taxable dollar is spent on 'welfare'. meanwhile over 68% is spent on the military.

W*GS

06-29-2006, 08:51 AM

roughly 4-8 cents on ever taxable dollar is spent on 'welfare'. meanwhile over 68% is spent on the military.

You know those are bogus factoids...

alkemical

06-29-2006, 08:53 AM

You know those are bogus factoids...

Really wags? With the billions approaching trillions that being spent on war - i'd highly doubt that.

footstepsfrom#27

06-29-2006, 09:02 AM

How much more?
My financial calculator says it's $7.68 an hour (roughly) given a 4% annual rate of inflation since 1996, and that is not a raise; it's only an increase tied to cost of living. Real wages in terms of buying power have declined about 40% in the last ten years, thus a corresponding increase to compensate for inflation at least makes a start towards rectifying a bad situation. Based on a 10 year cycle of sliding earning power for the bottom of the pyramid and record corporate profits, I don't think that's to unreasonable.

W*GS

06-29-2006, 09:09 AM

My financial calculator says it's $7.68 an hour (roughly) given a 4% annual rate of inflation since 1996,

When was annual inflation ever at 4% over the last ten years?

And what does corporate profits have to do with it? You just want to redistribute wealth...

At least be honest about it.

W*GS

06-29-2006, 09:10 AM

Really wags? With the billions approaching trillions that being spent on war - i'd highly doubt that.

Dig up the US federal budget over the last couple decades...

55CrushEm

06-29-2006, 09:13 AM

roughly 4-8 cents on ever taxable dollar is spent on 'welfare'. meanwhile over 68% is spent on the military.
Only 4-8% on welfare.....bullcrap !! And no, we don't spends 68% of our budget on the military!! Where did you conjure up these figures......

The government spends 2.3 TRILLION per year, and less than 500 billion on the military....that would less than 22%....

alkemical

06-29-2006, 09:21 AM

Only 4-8% on welfare.....bullcrap !! And no, we don't spends 68% of our budget on the military!! Where did you conjure up these figures......

The government spends 2.3 TRILLION per year, and less than 500 billion on the military....that would less than 22%....

How much has the war been cosing us latley?

defenseman

06-29-2006, 09:22 AM

There are no guarantees. Just opportunities.

Exactly, last time I checked, this isn't France...dman

alkemical

06-29-2006, 09:23 AM

Dig up the US federal budget over the last couple decades...

Does that include all the emergency spenditures?

footstepsfrom#27

06-29-2006, 09:27 AM

You might have to explain that one TJ to a few on here. WHAT, no handouts? Ill keep looking to find one.
Broncocalijohn defines "handouts" as simply paying working people enough to squeak by on, but oddly remans silent on the government goody chest bought and paid for with PAC money (bribes) that billionaires get to pick over any time they want to build a sports stadium or steal somebody's land through the power of imminant domain.

Next he targets minorities with clandestine comments about unplanned pregnancies, single mothers and criminal behavior but feels justified in calling others racists when they point out that success is also part of the equation.

How interesting...

defenseman

06-29-2006, 09:31 AM

Does that include all the emergency spenditures?

Good question, but I'm thinking the guys are right. 68% on the military is a pretty steep number. 25 -30% sounds more in the ball park to me. But, I need to help dig up some numbers to help this debate out since I stepped into this fray. Get back at ya....dman

*by the way, the 'military' non-combatant assigned is CONSTANTLY being asked to do more with less, cancellation of orders, supplies, TAD assignments, some major and sometimes massive budget cuts wrt morale,welfare and recreation stuff. In short, all the money, for the most part is headed out for support of the ME and mission related items. the rest? Catch as catch can. That includes medical and dental....dman

smalltowngrll

06-29-2006, 09:52 AM

alkemical

06-29-2006, 10:05 AM

If we have a min. wage, we should have a max. wage.

BroncoBuff

06-29-2006, 10:12 AM

I live in a state that has the second to highest miniumum wage rate in the country (7.25/hour). We have NO servers minimum wage rate (meaning a tipped employee makes the same as a regular minimum wage worker but they also get tips), and we have one of the highest unemploymnet rates (pre katrina). I do think the federal minimum wage should be increased, but I don't believe that it will solve the poverty problem. We place too much responsiblity upon the corporate world to solve the poverty issue. Poverty, IMO, is not due to poor wages, it's due to a way of thinking and a continuous cycle. Most of those on poverty, grew up on poverty, learned how to live that way, never were challanged to get out and really have been "ingraned" with that whole lifestyle. Granted, there are those that have broken the cycle, but the cycle is still there.
I don't agree with a lot of that ... in the first place, Oregon has lots of unusual laws - it's against the law to pump your own gas - self-service is illegal, for example. And while I'm not familiar with your unemployment statistics, I am skeptical that the generous minimum wage is the chief culprit.

As far as "breaking out" of a minimum wage lifestyle - NO WAY. To begin with, a lack of job skills is not "a way of thinking" or a "bad attitude." You are obviously highly intelligent and certainly have marketable job skills. But you are probably largely unaware that a large (very large) underclass of Americans exist that have little if any skills, education or training. This underclass is H U G E .... much larger than you imagine probably. I'm not making a joke here, but watch Jerry Springer or Maury. They have no shortage of people who want to be guests.

And I think you haven't considered the supply and demand component - there simply aren't enough jobs for semi-skilled $24 - $30,000 skills. Imagine if a chunk of this underclass were to "break out," as you suggest, in a short period. If they did, these mid-level skills jobs would find their salaries severly depressed - there would be too big a "supply" of these workers. There simply aren't enough jobs as, for example, store manager at "Chief Auto Parts." But there are plenty of jobs for counter-men and runners there.

This point is a corollary to my argument about illegal aliens. People (erroneously) argue that these aliens "do jobs that Americans won't do." That is a patently false argument. Sure, few if any Americans will "do" a janitor job for $5.25/hour and no benefits .... but if you offer $12/hour and medical insurance, American workers would line up around the block to be janitors.

But, BUSINESSES DON'T HAVE TO offer that salary, because the SUPPLY of workers willing to work for $5.25 and no benefits is large (and mostly illegal.)

defenseman

06-29-2006, 10:14 AM

If we have a min. wage, we should have a max. wage.

Do not agree........dman

alkemical

06-29-2006, 10:21 AM

Do not agree........dman

Well that's what a min. wage is dman.

smalltowngrll

06-29-2006, 10:24 AM

I only have highly marketable skills now, because I suffered through and only took jobs that were willing to give me skills. That was MY choice. I started out as your typical single mother, on food stamps. I got a raise of 10 cents per hour...and that raise put me over the threashold by $15 a month to continue to receive food staamps. So, at that time, I lost $200 month in food stamps while I only received $15 more in wages. Something is wrong with that.

Most advised me to find a different job, a lower paying one so that I could continue to receive the additional support. But, there was no way I wanted to stay on that the rest of my life. There was something in me that wanted a change!

There are a lot of jobs out there that will promote from within. There are a lot of companies out there that will give their workers a higher set of skills in order to keep them. It's much cheaper to pay a higher wage to a good employee and train them well, than to find a lower paid replacement! Granted, there are some poorly run companies that don't see that...but, that's where an employee must determine what is good for them.

Studies have shown that poverty IS, in fact, a cycle that needs to be broken. There are a few circumstances where this is not the case (such as sudden medical issues, etc) but, for the most part, it IS a lifestyle.

As a chinese proverb says it, "Give man a fish, he will eat for a day, Teach man to fish, he will eat for the rest of his life".

W*GS

06-29-2006, 10:25 AM

As a chinese proverb says it, "Give man a fish, he will eat for a day, Teach man to fish, he will eat for the rest of his life".

I prefer "Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life".

footstepsfrom#27

06-29-2006, 12:18 PM

When was annual inflation ever at 4% over the last ten years?
It's at 4.17% right now but more to the point if you're taking the BLS data at face value you'll arrive at a figure of about 29% over 10 years...of course to do so you have to ignore that the basket of CPI core measurables excludes energy and food...which is basically a way for the government to fool you into thinking things are better than they really are...so I factor these in and try to guess at a more reasonably "true" ROI as opposed to the one you're buying.
And what does corporate profits have to do with it? You just want to redistribute wealth...

At least be honest about it.
Like most in here, you assume everyone reaches their views in a box called politics...which they don't. I base mine on something called common sense because I distrust ALL politicians.

Economists frequently argue that the economy is robust based on corporate profits; in fact I just left a biz-networking event where a TCU Econ prof was stressing this very fact to a room full of corporate suits...while diminishing consumer demand and jobs data as a worthy competing factor, thus establishing more promising news and leading to a room full of good will, which is fine if you're an executive whose bonus structure is tied to your companies stock price...not so good if you're drawing a paycheck from WalMart. In the economists world, profits equal a healthy economy and to a high degree are tied to productivity, which...SUPRISE...is tied dramatically to labor costs since they represent the largest portion of business expense as opposed to equipment, infrastructure, etc... Thus, falling labor costs equal higher productivity and of course greater profits.

Lost in all this is the REAL WORLD where people live. My contention is that corporate profits are up, in large part due to the low cost of labor...Econ 101...so your question should be self explanatory. The fact that this doesn't make sense to you tells me more than you know about YOUR motivation...YOU just want to restribute wealth (upwards)...at least be honest about it.

I, on the other hand...DON'T want to "redistribute wealth". I want to create it...at the bottom of the pyramid by empowering things that are probably inconsequential in your world...insignificant stuff like hope, desire, motivation, drive and initiative...but hold water on the streets of urban America. I hold the view that future competitiveness in the global economy is tied to our ability to empower the bottom of the pyramid to produce wealth based on innovation, collaboration, developing new business models and initiative...basically some things that don't jive with the welfare state model. Maybe the stupidest thing we can do is to ignore the empowerment of our human resources in our rush to continue creating top-down definitions of what constitutes a healthy economy.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-29-2006, 04:27 PM

No, you nitwit...the people who you're talking about aren't working at all...they're selling dope and stealing car stereos. People who work for a living aren't losers becuase they make low wages; they're more often simply stuck in a situation where they never got the educational skills to command a higher wage. Pretty simple unless you've got blinders on.

I look at more than what somebody makes on their paycheck, unlike you. A single woman working two jobs to supprort her kids without any help from a deadbeat dad is a winner in my book whether she's making $5.15 or $80K a year.

So everyone who had kids after marriage is doing great huh? Right.

That's because you were't watching. They have major problems, but they've discovered how to pull together and help each other. They live 15 people in one appartment, share a car, learn Enlish and work 80 hours a week for nothing till they make it. What's your point? That hard work pays off? Fine...I never said it didn't. What's that got to do with the fact that people on the bottom haven't had a pay raise in 10 years and you get to enjoy the benefits of abusing them by saving a quarter on your sandwhich?

How is it "making excuses" to point out that wages have fallen 40% for the poorest of the poor over the last ten years while yours have risen? You're a typical American aristocratic snob who thinks everything you did to succeed was all about you. "Coddling" according to you means paying someone a decent wage. What somebody did or didn't do to get into that position doesn't change the fact that they can't dig out of it if you're paying them 40% less than they should be making.

Hey moron...try hooked on phonics. I'm not the one who thinks people on the bottom are losers; that's your take. I'm the one pointing out they're not, you idiot. If you learn to focus on reading comprehension you'll see that I stated that the people most marginalized and most lilkely representing the bottom of the wage scale are minorities, especially minority women. Care to challenge that? I'm pointng out ways that they are succeeding on their own in spite of attempts by people like you to make sure they don't. But go ahead and play the race card. It's the first resort of a weak argument.

:thumbsup: ^5

Bravo!

You have destroyed every single "argument" against raising the minimum wage that the anti-democracy/pro-corporatocracy ninnies have profferred here.

Good work. :thumbs:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-29-2006, 04:29 PM

It's at 4.17% right now but more to the point if you're taking the BLS data at face value you'll arrive at a figure of about 29% over 10 years...of course to do so you have to ignore that the basket of CPI core measurables excludes energy and food...which is basically a way for the government to fool you into thinking things are better than they really are...so I factor these in and try to guess at a more reasonably "true" ROI as opposed to the one you're buying.

Like most in here, you assume everyone reaches their views in a box called politics...which they don't. I base mine on something called common sense because I distrust ALL politicians.

Economists frequently argue that the economy is robust based on corporate profits; in fact I just left a biz-networking event where a TCU Econ prof was stressing this very fact to a room full of corporate suits...while diminishing consumer demand and jobs data as a worthy competing factor, thus establishing more promising news and leading to a room full of good will, which is fine if you're an executive whose bonus structure is tied to your companies stock price...not so good if you're drawing a paycheck from WalMart. In the economists world, profits equal a healthy economy and to a high degree are tied to productivity, which...SUPRISE...is tied dramatically to labor costs since they represent the largest portion of business expense as opposed to equipment, infrastructure, etc... Thus, falling labor costs equal higher productivity and of course greater profits.

Lost in all this is the REAL WORLD where people live. My contention is that corporate profits are up, in large part due to the low cost of labor...Econ 101...so your question should be self explanatory. The fact that this doesn't make sense to you tells me more than you know about YOUR motivation...YOU just want to restribute wealth (upwards)...at least be honest about it.

I, on the other hand...DON'T want to "redistribute wealth". I want to create it...at the bottom of the pyramid by empowering things that are probably inconsequential in your world...insignificant stuff like hope, desire, motivation, drive and initiative...but hold water on the streets of urban America. I hold the view that future competitiveness in the global economy is tied to our ability to empower the bottom of the pyramid to produce wealth based on innovation, collaboration, developing new business models and initiative...basically some things that don't jive with the welfare state model. Maybe the stupidest thing we can do is to ignore the empowerment of our human resources in our rush to continue creating top-down definitions of what constitutes a healthy economy.

W*GS =

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8697/36893112owned59dj.jpg

broncocalijohn

06-29-2006, 10:54 PM

Broncocalijohn defines "handouts" as simply paying working people enough to squeak by on, but oddly remans silent on the government goody chest bought and paid for with PAC money (bribes) that billionaires get to pick over any time they want to build a sports stadium or steal somebody's land through the power of imminant domain.

Next he targets minorities with clandestine comments about unplanned pregnancies, single mothers and criminal behavior but feels justified in calling others racists when they point out that success is also part of the equation.

How interesting...

When did i target minorities? Oh wait, since you said unplanned pregnancies, single mothers and criminal behavior you mus thave referred to minorities. Seems I never said one thing on race yet you did. Interesting point liberal. So you guys want to raise the minimum raise based on infltion/cost of living. Does that mean all jobs in private get the same benefit or just those scrapping on the bottom of the wage scale? Bleeding hearts just want to cost more to a group that shouldnt be a "family" but entry level for people like retirees and students. I cannot take the blame or burden for people's mistakes. This is not some snobby, upper class attitude by me. I am very much a blue collar guy with a business that is blue collar. I dropped out of junior college and work my ass off for 17 years. Only thing handed to me was $11k in 17 years from my grandfather. That paid for a computer 10 years ago and part of a down payment for some equipment. They were way young for marriage but My parents saved by working extra jobs before having me and to buy a house. They are what you do to not make costly mistakes. If somebody finds themselves at minimum wage, strive for more hours or get skills for a better job/wage. Dont BS me about "abusing" the minimum wagers over my sandwich i buy from them. I guess they are working for less than what they are worth and we "abuse" them by asking for no tomatoes? Sounds like another class warfare them vs us . Sorry wrong.

BTW 27, i love the comeback of people that have kids AFTER marriage are doing great. Compare how people are doing when they have kids BEFORE MARRIAGE to those that wait. Then check out those that have kids as teenagers. Those are your minimum wage earners too. Who put those people in their own situation. Can they blame themselves? No way with people like you to tell them it is somebody else's fault.

broncocalijohn

06-29-2006, 11:23 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-29-2006, 11:30 PM

The handout you spoke of makes it where you will be dependent on the government for generations.

In some cases.

You make it sound like this is what happens to everyone who needs a "handout" at some point or another.

This is simply not true.

There are a lot of people for whom dependence of food stamps and the like is just a temporary, transitional thing.

I suppose you consider things like Pell Grants government "handouts" too.

Spider

06-29-2006, 11:46 PM

too bad we couldnt take corperations off the handout nipple hey ........ 200.00 a month in foodstamps , damn you was rakin in all the bucks .........
had everything you wanted ..............but then GM rakes in Billions in corperate welfare ............ Small potatoes to your 200.00 ..............
I basicaly write my own paychecks , but that doesnt mean I piss on the less fortunate , Some people just cant expand mentaly or phyiscaly ......... I am sure you have heard the saying , that person isnt playing with a full deck ......
I tell you something I pay a shít load of taxes , Just figure out what the tax is on 240 gallons of fuel , thats just a drop in the bucket , But I would rather see my money go to the single mother then a CEO of a major company .......
Now I am not saying being on Welfare is good , all I am saying is just cause you made it doesnt mean you piss all over those that cant ........

footstepsfrom#27

06-29-2006, 11:51 PM

So you guys want to raise the minimum raise based on infltion/cost of living. Does that mean all jobs in private get the same benefit or just those scrapping on the bottom of the wage scale?
I guess you didn't read the thread did you? The MW workers make up the only group that has NOT been raised in 10 years. Pay attention.
Bleeding hearts just want to cost more to a group that shouldnt be a "family" but entry level for people like retirees and students. I cannot take the blame or burden for people's mistakes.
How exactly are YOU... "taking the blame" for people's mistakes? Perhaps you don't realize that you're ALREADY funding business overhead for anything companies wish to pass on to you in the form of higher prices; and that includes the increases in wages for everyone other than MW workers. So your point appears to be that you don't mind paying for anyone else to receive fair wages, as long as those who need it most aren't included. I'm sure you didn't realize that was your point, but now you know.
I dropped out of junior college and work my ass off for 17 years.
That wasn't terribly bright of you now was it? Yet in spite of your own foolish mistakes, you're content to pass judgement on others for theirs? That's pretty hypocritical.
My parents saved by working extra jobs before having me and to buy a house. They are what you do to not make costly mistakes.
So you grew up in a house...had two parents...and got financial backing to open a business, yet in spite of this support system, YOU in fact DID make a costly mistake by dropping out of community college. Interesting...wonder how far you'd have gotten if you had one parent and lived in some drug and crime infested inner city neighborhood appartment and didn't have anyone to give you $11,000? Maybe you'd be working a minimum wage job.
If somebody finds themselves at minimum wage, strive for more hours or get skills for a better job/wage.
I realize you're no rocket scientist, but lets put that partial community college education to work here shall we? $5.15 x 60 hours= $309 x 52 weeks= $16,068 minus 20% taxes= $12,854.40/12 months= $1,071.20 per month

$1,071 a month is what you're left with after taxes if you can manage to work 60 hours a week every week of the year. And you find time to go to school...when?...during this time? Some people can do that...some can't. I know...they're losers.
BTW 27, i love the comeback of people that have kids AFTER marriage are doing great. Compare how people are doing when they have kids BEFORE MARRIAGE to those that wait. Then check out those that have kids as teenagers. Those are your minimum wage earners too. Who put those people in their own situation. Can they blame themselves? No way with people like you to tell them it is somebody else's fault.
Yeah...everybody already knows that having kids early hurts your economic future. Your point is...what? That people make mistakes that affect their future? You already told us you made them too...so what?

Please point out the place in this thread where I stated it was somebody elses fault...it isn't a question of whose fault it is. Apparently your point consists of the idea that employers should establish themselves as some kind of moral compass and use this exhalted position to justify underpaying their employees.

BTW...I think you made the right decision dropping out of community college.:thumbsup:

footstepsfrom#27

06-30-2006, 12:01 AM

Spider

06-30-2006, 12:06 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-30-2006, 12:07 AM

I guess you didn't read the thread did you? The MW workers make up the only group that has NOT been raised in 10 years. Pay attention.

How exactly are YOU... "taking the blame" for people's mistakes? Perhaps you don't realize that you're ALREADY funding business overhead for anything companies wish to pass on to you in the form of higher prices; and that includes the increases in wages for everyone other than MW workers. So your point appears to be that you don't mind paying for anyone else to receive fair wages, as long as those who need it most aren't included. I'm sure you didn't realize that was your point, but now you know.

That wasn't terribly bright of you now was it? Yet in spite of your own foolish mistakes, you're content to pass judgement on others for theirs? That's pretty hypocritical.

So you grew up in a house...had two parents...and got financial backing to open a business, yet in spite of this support system, YOU in fact DID make a costly mistake by dropping out of community college. Interesting...wonder how far you'd have gotten if you had one parent and lived in some drug and crime infested inner city neighborhood appartment and didn't have anyone to give you $11,000? Maybe you'd be working a minimum wage job.

I realize you're no rocket scientist, but lets put that partial community college education to work here shall we? $5.15 x 60 hours= $309 x 52 weeks= $16,068 minus 20% taxes= $12,854.40/12 months= $1,071.20 per month

$1,071 a month is what you're left with after taxes if you can manage to work 60 hours a week every week of the year. And you find time to go to school...when?...during this time? Some people can do that...some can't. I know...they're losers.

Yeah...everybody already knows that having kids early hurts your economic future. Your point is...what? That people make mistakes that affect their future? You already told us you made them too...so what?

Please point out the place in this thread where I stated it was somebody elses fault...it isn't a question of whose fault it is. Apparently your point consists of the idea that employers should establish themselves as some kind of moral compass and use this exhalted position to justify underpaying their employees.

BTW...I think you made the right decision dropping out of community college.:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

Were he not suffering from a chronic case of EDD (Empathy Deficit Disorder) I'm sure he'd better understand the validity of all of the foregoing points.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-30-2006, 12:08 AM

Spider

06-30-2006, 12:14 AM

Amazing how often you see this kind of double standard at work where people like him are concerned.
It is more then that , they dont think things through ........ Here is a classic in my line of work ......
I have 2 loads 1 is a load of "Mud" that pays 2.85 cents a mile going to Hobbs New Mexico 921 miles.. the other is a load of Pipe paying 3.95 cents a mile going to Farmington New Mexico 650 miles adding in .25% fuel surcharge ..What load do you take ? Keep in mind I get 5 miles to the gallon

footstepsfrom#27

06-30-2006, 12:14 AM

Amazing how often you see this kind of double standard at work where people like him are concerned.
Why is it always the people whose upbringing has least prepared them for the ability to avoid mistakes in life that we blame the most when they make those mistakes?

I don't get that...???

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-30-2006, 12:36 AM

Why is it always the people whose upbringing has least prepared them for the ability to avoid mistakes in life that we blame the most when they make those mistakes?

I don't get that...???

It's all about projection, IMO.

People like calijohn can't look at their own imperfections, mistakes, and human frailties without feeling overwhelmed by shame, so they project them onto others - usually those others in society whose weaknesses and imperfections are the most readily obvious.

fontaine

06-30-2006, 04:14 AM

Waitress is a minimum wage PLUS TIPS! That doesnt make it a minimum job in my eyes. You guys think i follow the republican way of thinking is untrue as I am for my feelings that happen to follow the republican way. I am a conservative first. Minimum wage jobs are not geared for families but entry level jobs where they can get a raise as they learn experience. I dont want to hold everyones hand based on them falling on hard times. Sounds cruel? sure to you. Minimum wage jobs is how i described it. I dont want whinners i want winners. Do something about your situation and do it like millions have. For those senior citizens that go "lose" their jobs. Did they plan for retirement? Can they get a job using their experience ie Home DEPOT that pays more than minimum wagE? I use harsh words as in "loser". I have more sympathy for that "loser" if he bettered himself with part time school/2nd job. I care for the one who is trying to do better not sitting and accepting their minimum wage job. My arguement is more for not having it as a living wage than necesarily a raise in the minimum wage.

It's pretty interesting how the human mind thinks/behaves under the financially driven ethos of our world.

Take this guy. Essentially what broncocalijohn has said:

A person living off minimum wage to him is a "loser" who hasn't bettered him/herself. If that person told broncocalijohn that s/he was poor and on minimum wage because of circumstances and that they were "unlucky" in life then they'll got mocked/ridiculed and called a loser.

Whereas if a person who appeared financially well off (never mind how and whatever means that fortune was amassed), said s/he was "lucky," fortunate, blessed in life etc. Then someone like broncocalijohn would heap kudos and praise the persons humble attitude and for "bettering" themselves.

It's pretty pathetic actually.

55CrushEm

06-30-2006, 06:05 AM

I prefer "Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life".
LOL

W*GS

06-30-2006, 08:12 AM

It's at 4.17% right now but more to the point if you're taking the BLS data at face value you'll arrive at a figure of about 29% over 10 years...of course to do so you have to ignore that the basket of CPI core measurables excludes energy and food...which is basically a way for the government to fool you into thinking things are better than they really are...so I factor these in and try to guess at a more reasonably "true" ROI as opposed to the one you're buying.

All that, and still no reason why you picked 4% annual inflation over the last 10 years to derive a new minimum wage. Lotta talk, not a lot said.

Like most in here, you assume everyone reaches their views in a box called politics...which they don't. I base mine on something called common sense because I distrust ALL politicians.

So why depend on some State-dictated (i.e., politician-set) number? And no, I make no assumptions about from where you get your ideas. Seems to me, however, they're based on fundamentally contradictory premises, like I pointed out in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Economists frequently argue that the economy is robust based on corporate profits;

They do? What of all the other factors that economists use? Are corporate profits the only metric they use? Interesting claim-without-proof you have.

Lost in all this is the REAL WORLD where people live. My contention is that corporate profits are up, in large part due to the low cost of labor...Econ 101...so your question should be self explanatory. The fact that this doesn't make sense to you tells me more than you know about YOUR motivation...YOU just want to restribute wealth (upwards)...at least be honest about it.

I see you've already bought into the zero-sum ideology. Pity.

I, on the other hand...DON'T want to "redistribute wealth". I want to create it...

A State-coerced minimum wage doesn't create wealth. Show me how it does.

Maybe the stupidest thing we can do is to ignore the empowerment of our human resources in our rush to continue creating top-down definitions of what constitutes a healthy economy.

Un-hunh.

What's more stupid is thinking you can jigger the law of supply and demand with no unfortunate consequences.

footstepsfrom#27

06-30-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by W*GS
that, and still no reason why you picked 4% annual inflation over the last 10 years to derive a new minimum wage. Lotta talk, not a lot said.
What exactly are you looking for here?...surrender on the idea that the MW should rise?...all because I picked 4% as a revised estimate of inflation? Not gonne happen...because as I already stated, you can't trust the governments figures, which project to around 2.9% over the last 10 years, but ignore food and energy in their basket of core measurables for the CPI. According to the government's own statistics, it's been at 3% or higher 40 out of the last 120 months and 25 of the last 60, and that includes the 15 month plunge following 911 when the economy slowed dramatically and inflation followed suit. If you're an economist and have a formula for measuring food and energy in the CPI core, please post it, othewise what's the point in disputing this? Whatever it is...it's more than we're being led to believe, probably a lot more given the rapid rise in oil prices over the last year, and since the point to this whole part of the discussion is that minimum wages have been frozen for 10 years, while other wages have risen...that means MW workers lost corresponding buying power directly disproportionate to rising costs. So what's your point? You're unhappy with 4%? Maybe it's 3.8% instead? So what? The point remains the same whether it's spot on accurate or not. It's certainly more accurate than taking the figures at face value. Perhaps it's even higher than 4%...and it's certainly rising faster now and has been doing so over the last 16 months...hence the Fed's action to raise interest rates in order to slow growth and control inflation. As I said, if you can calculate an adjusted ROI based on food and energy included in the CPI please do so, and if not...this is a useless argument given that my point is simply that prices are rising and wages are not for workers in this category.
Originally Posted by W*GS
So why depend on some State-dictated (i.e., politician-set) number? And no, I make no assumptions about from where you get your ideas. Seems to me, however, they're based on fundamentally contradictory premises, like I pointed out in the first sentence of this paragraph.
What should we base it on? What business wants to pay? Perhaps you have a better solution. If so please share it. As for what you pointed out in the first sentence...it amounts to nothing but nitpicking...and certainly has no bearing on me basing my ideas on "fundamentally contradictory premises" as you put it. What fundamentally contradictory premises would those be? That economic growth ought to include the entire wage ladder including workers at the bottom? That seems to be what you're suggesting.
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27
Economists frequently argue that the economy is robust based on corporate profits
Originally Postd by W*GS
They do? What of all the other factors that economists use? Are corporate profits the only metric they use? Interesting claim-without-proof you have.
I've been referencing the production side of the economy...ie; that which is of interest to business rather than labor...that should be obvious. The goal of business is profit, but if you want to nitpick over me not including all the various factors in economic forecasts and break them down further go ahead...again...what is your point? That GDP isn't the same as corporate profit margins? Fine. Is that it? I don't see any recognition on your part that something like the payroll data figures or debt to income/debt to assets ratios for individuals and households referenced earlier is even an issue. Bottom line...the economic forecasts we get mean a lot more to big business than they do to the average worker in the real world. Or do you dispute that and are you trying to tell me these economists live in the real world?
Originally Posted by W*GS
I see you've already bought into the zero-sum ideology. Pity.
I've done no such thing. But it seems you have since you apparently attribute a rise in the minimum wage as as a coresponding decline for business profits...or isn't that your argument? If not....what is it? Because so far you've stated no argument for what you think...only criticized what I think.
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27
A State-coerced minimum wage doesn't create wealth. Show me how it does.
Nice straw man but that one's already been tried...This is why it's always a good idea to read the entire thread if you're serious about the discussion. I already stated that it's not a solution by itself, and I referenced several additional things that were making a difference and should be addressed. But you have to start somewhere. What is your solution if a "state-coerced" minimum wage isn't to your liking? Something only corporations have control over no doubt...why don't we take that approach with ALL laws related to business? Let's allow business to simply do what they want with no oversight at all...OKIE DOKEY? Say Enron for me.

BTW...the state is NOW "coercing" the minimum wage...by refusing to raise it. You don't get to call "state-coercion" when action is taken and "supply and demand" when it's not...sorry. Typical of somebody who thinks the economy's measure of strength is only all about what's good for Wall Street.
Originally Posted by W*GS
What's more stupid is thinking you can jigger the law of supply and demand with no unfortunate consequences.
You've already done that. You're interested purely in the production/supply side of things, assuming that the needs of business so far outweigh anything of consequence that consumers/labor bring to the table that their interests are a mere afterthought. Supply and demand has somehow managed to survive in spite of minimum wage hikes in the past...and as LABF pointed out when under Clinton's wage hike, the economy still grew rapidly. It's not supply and supply...it's supply and demand...and demand doesn't exist in a vacuum where the only thing that matters is what makes shareholders happy.

W*GS

06-30-2006, 01:41 PM

What exactly are you looking for here?...surrender on the idea that the MW should rise?...

You've already decided that it must rise; I just want to see if you can come up with a number. Why not $10/hour? $20/hour?

my point is simply that prices are rising and wages are not for workers in this category.

As if the people who make up MW earners are the exact same group of people they've always been, i.e., there's been no change in the individuals in that group.

What should we base it on? What business wants to pay?

An employee is paid whatever she and her employer agree upon.

What fundamentally contradictory premises would those be?

That you don't trust politicians yet want them to decide what someone is paid.

Bottom line...the economic forecasts we get mean a lot more to big business than they do to the average worker in the real world.

Yep - workers and "big business" are enemies.

Corporate profits are hardly the only, or even the main, metric economists use to determine the health of an economy. Your claim that it's highly relevant only reveals your biases and prejudices.

But it seems you have since you apparently attribute a rise in the minimum wage as as a coresponding decline for business profits...

Taking your own argument and turning it on its head in an attempt to project it on me?

You're the one who's implicitly claiming that corporate profits come at the expense of the "average worker". There's that zero-sum nonsense sneaking in again.

BTW...the state is NOW "coercing" the minimum wage...by refusing to raise it.

You don't know what coercion is, do you?

You're interested purely in the production/supply side of things, assuming that the needs of business so far outweigh anything of consequence that consumers/labor bring to the table that their interests are a mere afterthought.

Kill that strawman! A few thousand more times, and you'll be in LABF's league.

It's not supply and supply...it's supply and demand...and demand doesn't exist in a vacuum where the only thing that matters is what makes shareholders happy.

As if making the MW $7.68/hour, or $10/hour, or $1000/hour has no consequences...

Didja ever think that supply and demand applies to the labor market as well?

Which would you prefer? 8,000 employed at $10/hour and 2,000 unemployed (20% unemployment), or 10,000 employed at $8/hour?

alkemical

06-30-2006, 01:50 PM

Doesn't matter since our money is make believe.

smalltowngrll

06-30-2006, 02:10 PM

Doesn't matter since our money is make believe.

I don't know about yours...but, mine isn't monopoly money!:clown: ;)

footstepsfrom#27

06-30-2006, 02:13 PM

You've already decided that it must rise; I just want to see if you can come up with a number. Why not $10/hour? $20/hour?
I gave you a number and you didn't like it; not because it's beyond the bounds of reason, but probably because you'd like to hold the MW where it is indefinitely, NEVER raising it again...or postpone it for as long as possible...how long?...another 10 years? Another 20 years?
As if the people who make up MW earners are the exact same group of people they've always been, i.e., there's been no change in the individuals in that group.
Never said that. Some are however...even if that group is small.
An employee is paid whatever she and her employer agree upon.
A process that's relevant if you've got marketable skills in a competitive market...meaningless if you don't. Thus, your point is meaningless with regard to this discussion.
That you don't trust politicians yet want them to decide what someone is paid.
The fact that I don't trust them is irrelevant, since they are the agent of change in this process, unless you're telling me that you trust corporate America implicitely to always do the right thing...since that's who you say should make this decision. Is that what you're saying? It must be...otherwise you're indicting your own reasoning.
Yep - workers and "big business" are enemies.
They don't have to be. Read my thread "CK Prahalad and the Bottom of the Pyramid".
Corporate profits are hardly the only, or even the main, metric economists use to determine the health of an economy. Your claim that it's highly relevant only reveals your biases and prejudices.
Once again, since you're choosing to ignore what you want to...I never said that. I've used "corporate profits" as an umbrella term to describe the way economic forecasts are weighted towards the view from Wall Street and ignore the view from Main Street.
Taking your own argument and turning it on its head in an attempt to project it on me?

You're the one who's implicitly claiming that corporate profits come at the expense of the "average worker". There's that zero-sum nonsense sneaking in again.
Nope...never said that either. I said that since corporate profits are up and labor costs have a lot to do with that, it's reasonable to see a corresponding rise in the MW. Simple reading comprehension isn't your thing is it?
You don't know what coercion is, do you?
I know you don't, because you're using it in a way that is outside it's intended meaning.
Kill that strawman! A few thousand more times, and you'll be in LABF's league.
It is what it is...can't help it if you failed to read the thread and got called on it. I notice you're not pursuing that angle any more.
As if making the MW $7.68/hour, or $10/hour, or $1000/hour has no consequences...
Everything has consequences...but you can't prove what you're trying to suggest...that a rise in the MW will result in bad news for business. Again...read the earlier posts. Interesting though that you're only worried about consequences on Wall Street, not in the real world. Maybe because the worker-serfs only exist to feed the enterprise mission eh?
Didja ever think that supply and demand applies to the labor market as well?
Didha ever think there's more than one way to define that and quanitfy its impact?
Which would you prefer? 8,000 employed at $10/hour and 2,000 unemployed (20% unemployment), or 10,000 employed at $8/hour?
Hypotheticals...fine...which would you prefer? You've had it your way for 10 years...and the adjusted unemployment figures including discouraged workers are much higher than what you want us to believe.

I'm late for a meeting in Dallas...but I'll be back later to slap you around some more since you seemm to like the abuse.

alkemical

06-30-2006, 02:14 PM

I don't know about yours...but, mine isn't monopoly money!:clown: ;)

Sure it is.

Explain to me what $5 is.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-30-2006, 02:25 PM

Sure it is.

Explain to me what $5 is.

2 home cooked meals or a six pack of ale, a movie ticket, close to two gallons of gas, a gallon of organic light soy milk, almost one Mann's or YoZuri lure, dog food for 2 weeks, cat food for a month, 2 buckets of balls on the range, 3 beers at the Tiki bar, etc... What did you think it was?

W*GS

06-30-2006, 02:29 PM

I gave you a number and you didn't like it; not because it's beyond the bounds of reason, but probably because you'd like to hold the MW where it is indefinitely, NEVER raising it again...or postpone it for as long as possible...how long?...another 10 years? Another 20 years?

There you go with your flights-o-fancy again.

Face it - when challenged to provide a "better" number, all you can do is hem and haw and never really prove your argument. Why must the MW rise? Because it hasn't in 10 years? Because corporate profits are up? Because you say so (which is all the argument you've made, and it's not one).

Never said that. Some are however...even if that group is small.

If one person has been stuck at MW since 1996, that's unacceptable. Correct?

The fact that I don't trust them is irrelevant, since they are the agent of change in this process,

What makes politicians trustworthy ("they are the agent of change") in this instance but not in others?

I know you don't, because you're using it in a way that is outside it's intended meaning.

So, if I'm an employer, and I don't pay employees the MW (and assuming they're in the class of employees whom the law says must be paid at least the MW), there's no chance of action by the State against me? Do you think the MW law is mere suggestion, with no penalty for failure to obey it?

Everything has consequences...but you can't prove what you're trying to suggest...that a rise in the MW will result in bad news for business.

Not at all - a rise in the MW will be bad for employees and job-seekers, and bad for the economy as a whole. Stick that in your calculator and figure it out.

Hypotheticals...fine...which would you prefer?

I would prefer everyone who wants a job has a job - rather than arbitrary dictates by the State as to who gets paid what. Why do you want to shut out folks who want jobs? Are you comfortable with State-created unemployment?
Why?

I'm late for a meeting in Dallas...but I'll be back later to slap you around some more since you seemm to like the abuse.

Your attempts to make an argument are abusing economics, reason, and logic.

alkemical

06-30-2006, 02:31 PM

2 home cooked meals or a six pack of ale, a movie ticket, close to two gallons of gas, a gallon of organic light soy milk, almost one Mann's or YoZuri lure, dog food for 2 weeks, cat food for a month, 2 buckets of balls on the range, 3 beers at the Tiki bar, etc... What did you think it was?

So $5 is only what is dictated by the market?

Bronco_Beerslug

06-30-2006, 02:40 PM

So $5 is only what is dictated by the market?
Is only what... worth? Money is what makes you go to work everyday.

alkemical

06-30-2006, 02:44 PM

Is only what... worth? Money is what makes you go to work everyday.

So money is no more with a cookie i give to my dog?

bendog

06-30-2006, 02:45 PM

I've never understood this about you, Wags, nor libertarians in general. Society takes actions that effect markets every day. Gore wanted more mpgs. Bush didn't. Market effect. The rich have less tax/gnpshare now than in 2000. That effects demand. Mississippi has the higherst sales tax on food in America, and is like 48th in per capita income. That has an effect on demand for certain grocery items.

There's nothing inherently 'evil' or anti-capitalism is "skewing" the market one way or another. Friedman never argued that. Hagel, maybe, but .... No doubt we have an economic problem when we try to use policy/tax/monetary to overcome some overriding economic trend. Nixon screwed with the dollar to hide rising oil prices. Maybe bushii is doing the same, we'll see.

But skewing the market to higher wages would only be a problem if it drove jobs overseas, or if wages were so high it became inflationary or put too much gnp in demand at the cost of supply. And even then, we'd still have the effects of other countries policies skewing their price for labor.

It's like you guys worship some god of the market equillibrium, which in the real world, esp the global economy, just doesn't exist.

footstepsfrom#27

07-01-2006, 12:39 AM

Face it - when challenged to provide a "better" number, all you can do is hem and haw and never really prove your argument. Why must the MW rise? Because it hasn't in 10 years? Because corporate profits are up? Because you say so (which is all the argument you've made, and it's not one).
Frankly I'm dissapointed in the level of difficulty you presented in this discussion. I expected more.

I don't need to provide a "better number". I only need to expose the one that exists as phoney, and suggest a reasonable alternative, which I have. The burden of proof is on you to overcome the basic fact that the government's ROI is bogus, which you have failed to disprove and have not even dissputed. You're quite the master at spinning the inconsequential and the unimportant to look as if they are the critical. Note the following as the overarching themes most central to this debate...themes you've attempted to obscure by spinning meaningless points of minutia as if they mattered.

1. At some point the minimum wage must be raised. It should not, and can
not remain frozen forever.
2. The rate of inflation provided by the government is a ruse built on skewed
methodology for defining it.
3. Economic forecasts that focus only on what benefits big business are
unreliable indicators of reality and designed to decieve the public.
4. Business has no underlying inherrant birthright to establish itself as the
lone center of influence on the economy in a capitalistic society.
5. Government, though imperfect, is the arbitrator of record in determining
what restraints and protections are built into the system to afford checks
and balances neccessary to protect the interests of all involved.

These are the bedrock issues here, each of which I have addressed and you have not. I've suggested the minimum wage be raised because ten years of falling buying power is to much. You've refused to acknowledge that it needs to EVER be raised. Instead you suggest that some magical formula must be provided to determine when and by how much, thus suggesting that if a perfect solution cannot be identified with financial metrics, then no solution should be sought. You're argument amounts to a poor political attempt to fend off common sense.

You insist I identify the rate of inflation with a number. Why? YOU don't have a number either, but the difference is you don't aknowledge this. However, when confronted with this fact, you have not denied that the government's formula for ROI is flawed because you cannot deny it. Instead you can only ask, "what's your number"? Suppose I suggested a corresponding raise in the MW that's tied to the flawed numbers the government issues? Would that satisfy you? No. You want no rise at all...ever.

I've identified the need to forecast the economy on two fronts; one that impacts business and one that impacts labor. Your response? To nitpick over terminology and demand a list of economic indicators used to forecast the movement of the economy. Do you think if I didn't know anything about these factors that I couldn't easily look them up? No...you're not that stupid. You're real game here is to pretend that this is an issue, which it's not. The REAL issue is one you've been unable to address; that economic indicators are weighted towards what impacts production (business) and do not adequately address demand (labor and consumers).

Why have you done this? Simple...your slavish devotion to libertarian political ideology blinds you to common sense...so you think that somehow business has some inherrant underlying RIGHT to be considered the sole voice of what is acceptable and what is not because you do not acknowledge working people as a stakeholder in this economy. They are merely a line item budget consideration in your balance sheet. Thus, you're economic model is flawed beyond repair because you fundamentally missunderstand capitalism, it's strengths, it's legitimate goals and it's history. You remove labor from their legitimate right to influence the process as stakeholders and you do this by discussing impact on the economy only in terms of what impacts business interests, pretending that market forces that negatively impact business are illigitimate whether they are important to labor or not. Your weak attempt to suggest that employment is impacted negatively by a raise in the MW is also flawed...but again you failed to read the thread. Current research has suggested this is false, and surveys of economists have shown over half dissagree with you.

Finally, you pretend that since I distrust government, government should have no role. Yet it really doesn't matter whether you or I think they should or should not influence the process because the fact is government DOES have control, whether you like it or not. Foolilshly you contend that government "interference" be defined as intruding into the market forces on behalf of labor, but this logic is absurd given that government excercises control over LABOR if they do NOTHING...because they then pave the way for rampant abuse of the worker at the hands of the corporation. Again...your assumption that business is blessed with some underlying inherrant right to control the markets to their own advantage without acknowledging the claims of other stakeholders is spurious, reeks of classism, and is flat out stupid.
Your attempts to make an argument are abusing economics, reason, and logic.
I question whether you know anything at all about economics. You've offered no information to suggest you can do more than complain about anything that impacts the corporate bottom line, and you've demonstrated strikingly poor understanding of all the concepts discussed in here. So far all I've heard is blind and missguided devotion to political ideology that believes government has no legitimate role in mediating economic policy if it interferes with the "rights" of Wall Street.

Again...

Five basic nexus points of importance reflect the legitimate framework for this discussion. You've provided no evidence you're capable of interacting with any of them, nor that you even understand these issues are relevant. All in all...a pathetic example of nothing more than another robotic responder incapable of thinking beyond their own limited experience.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-01-2006, 02:17 AM

What exactly are you looking for here?...surrender on the idea that the MW should rise?...all because I picked 4% as a revised estimate of inflation? Not gonne happen...because as I already stated, you can't trust the governments figures, which project to around 2.9% over the last 10 years, but ignore food and energy in their basket of core measurables for the CPI. According to the government's own statistics, it's been at 3% or higher 40 out of the last 120 months and 25 of the last 60, and that includes the 15 month plunge following 911 when the economy slowed dramatically and inflation followed suit. If you're an economist and have a formula for measuring food and energy in the CPI core, please post it, othewise what's the point in disputing this? Whatever it is...it's more than we're being led to believe, probably a lot more given the rapid rise in oil prices over the last year, and since the point to this whole part of the discussion is that minimum wages have been frozen for 10 years, while other wages have risen...that means MW workers lost corresponding buying power directly disproportionate to rising costs. So what's your point? You're unhappy with 4%? Maybe it's 3.8% instead? So what? The point remains the same whether it's spot on accurate or not. It's certainly more accurate than taking the figures at face value. Perhaps it's even higher than 4%...and it's certainly rising faster now and has been doing so over the last 16 months...hence the Fed's action to raise interest rates in order to slow growth and control inflation. As I said, if you can calculate an adjusted ROI based on food and energy included in the CPI please do so, and if not...this is a useless argument given that my point is simply that prices are rising and wages are not for workers in this category.

What should we base it on? What business wants to pay? Perhaps you have a better solution. If so please share it. As for what you pointed out in the first sentence...it amounts to nothing but nitpicking...and certainly has no bearing on me basing my ideas on "fundamentally contradictory premises" as you put it. What fundamentally contradictory premises would those be? That economic growth ought to include the entire wage ladder including workers at the bottom? That seems to be what you're suggesting.

I've been referencing the production side of the economy...ie; that which is of interest to business rather than labor...that should be obvious. The goal of business is profit, but if you want to nitpick over me not including all the various factors in economic forecasts and break them down further go ahead...again...what is your point? That GDP isn't the same as corporate profit margins? Fine. Is that it? I don't see any recognition on your part that something like the payroll data figures or debt to income/debt to assets ratios for individuals and households referenced earlier is even an issue. Bottom line...the economic forecasts we get mean a lot more to big business than they do to the average worker in the real world. Or do you dispute that and are you trying to tell me these economists live in the real world?

I've done no such thing. But it seems you have since you apparently attribute a rise in the minimum wage as as a coresponding decline for business profits...or isn't that your argument? If not....what is it? Because so far you've stated no argument for what you think...only criticized what I think.

Nice straw man but that one's already been tried...This is why it's always a good idea to read the entire thread if you're serious about the discussion. I already stated that it's not a solution by itself, and I referenced several additional things that were making a difference and should be addressed. But you have to start somewhere. What is your solution if a "state-coerced" minimum wage isn't to your liking? Something only corporations have control over no doubt...why don't we take that approach with ALL laws related to business? Let's allow business to simply do what they want with no oversight at all...OKIE DOKEY? Say Enron for me.

BTW...the state is NOW "coercing" the minimum wage...by refusing to raise it. You don't get to call "state-coercion" when action is taken and "supply and demand" when it's not...sorry. Typical of somebody who thinks the economy's measure of strength is only all about what's good for Wall Street.

You've already done that. You're interested purely in the production/supply side of things, assuming that the needs of business so far outweigh anything of consequence that consumers/labor bring to the table that their interests are a mere afterthought. Supply and demand has somehow managed to survive in spite of minimum wage hikes in the past...and as LABF pointed out when under Clinton's wage hike, the economy still grew rapidly. It's not supply and supply...it's supply and demand...and demand doesn't exist in a vacuum where the only thing that matters is what makes shareholders happy.

Wow!

You just mopped the floor with W*GS.

Bravo! :thumbsup:

I especially liked this part:

What is your solution if a "state-coerced" minimum wage isn't to your liking? Something only corporations have control over no doubt...why don't we take that approach with ALL laws related to business? Let's allow business to simply do what they want with no oversight at all...OKIE DOKEY? Say Enron for me.

This is W*GS' ideology in a nutshell.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-01-2006, 02:45 AM

Frankly I'm dissapointed in the level of difficulty you presented in this discussion. I expected more.

I don't need to provide a "better number". I only need to expose the one that exists as phoney, and suggest a reasonable alternative, which I have. The burden of proof is on you to overcome the basic fact that the government's ROI is bogus, which you have failed to disprove and have not even dissputed. You're quite the master at spinning the inconsequential and the unimportant to look as if they are the critical. Note the following as the overarching themes most central to this debate...themes you've attempted to obscure by spinning meaningless points of minutia as if they mattered.

1. At some point the minimum wage must be raised. It should not, and can
not remain frozen forever.
2. The rate of inflation provided by the government is a ruse built on skewed
methodology for defining it.
3. Economic forecasts that focus only on what benefits big business are
unreliable indicators of reality and designed to decieve the public.
4. Business has no underlying inherrant birthright to establish itself as the
lone center of influence on the economy in a capitalistic society.
5. Government, though imperfect, is the arbitrator of record in determining
what restraints and protections are built into the system to afford checks
and balances neccessary to protect the interests of all involved.

These are the bedrock issues here, each of which I have addressed and you have not. I've suggested the minimum wage be raised because ten years of falling buying power is to much. You've refused to acknowledge that it needs to EVER be raised. Instead you suggest that some magical formula must be provided to determine when and by how much, thus suggesting that if a perfect solution cannot be identified with financial metrics, then no solution should be sought. You're argument amounts to a poor political attempt to fend off common sense.

You insist I identify the rate of inflation with a number. Why? YOU don't have a number either, but the difference is you don't aknowledge this. However, when confronted with this fact, you have not denied that the government's formula for ROI is flawed because you cannot deny it. Instead you can only ask, "what's your number"? Suppose I suggested a corresponding raise in the MW that's tied to the flawed numbers the government issues? Would that satisfy you? No. You want no rise at all...ever.

I've identified the need to forecast the economy on two fronts; one that impacts business and one that impacts labor. Your response? To nitpick over terminology and demand a list of economic indicators used to forecast the movement of the economy. Do you think if I didn't know anything about these factors that I couldn't easily look them up? No...you're not that stupid. You're real game here is to pretend that this is an issue, which it's not. The REAL issue is one you've been unable to address; that economic indicators are weighted towards what impacts production (business) and do not adequately address demand (labor and consumers).

Why have you done this? Simple...your slavish devotion to libertarian political ideology blinds you to common sense...so you think that somehow business has some inherrant underlying RIGHT to be considered the sole voice of what is acceptable and what is not because you do not acknowledge working people as a stakeholder in this economy. They are merely a line item budget consideration in your balance sheet. Thus, you're economic model is flawed beyond repair because you fundamentally missunderstand capitalism, it's strengths, it's legitimate goals and it's history. You remove labor from their legitimate right to influence the process as stakeholders and you do this by discussing impact on the economy only in terms of what impacts business interests, pretending that market forces that negatively impact business are illigitimate whether they are important to labor or not. Your weak attempt to suggest that employment is impacted negatively by a raise in the MW is also flawed...but again you failed to read the thread. Current research has suggested this is false, and surveys of economists have shown over half dissagree with you.

Finally, you pretend that since I distrust government, government should have no role. Yet it really doesn't matter whether you or I think they should or should not influence the process because the fact is government DOES have control, whether you like it or not. Foolilshly you contend that government "interference" be defined as intruding into the market forces on behalf of labor, but this logic is absurd given that government excercises control over LABOR if they do NOTHING...because they then pave the way for rampant abuse of the worker at the hands of the corporation. Again...your assumption that business is blessed with some underlying inherrant right to control the markets to their own advantage without acknowledging the claims of other stakeholders is spurious, reeks of classism, and is flat out stupid.

I question whether you know anything at all about economics. You've offered no information to suggest you can do more than complain about anything that impacts the corporate bottom line, and you've demonstrated strikingly poor understanding of all the concepts discussed in here. So far all I've heard is blind and missguided devotion to political ideology that believes government has no legitimate role in mediating economic policy if it interferes with the "rights" of Wall Street.

Again...

Five basic nexus points of importance reflect the legitimate framework for this discussion. You've provided no evidence you're capable of interacting with any of them, nor that you even understand these issues are relevant. All in all...a pathetic example of nothing more than another robotic responder incapable of thinking beyond their own limited experience.

Holy mackerel!

Talk about a tour de force!

W*GS is getting pummelled within inches of his life here.

You have exposed every fallacy, every logical absurdity, and every ugly lack of social ethics in W*GS' political/socioeconomic worldview in one fell swoop.

Is it too late to go back and nominate footstepsfrom#27 for poster of the year? :~ohyah!: ;D :thumbs:

W*GS

07-01-2006, 08:23 AM

I see LABF has a new object for his affection.

LABF, did you have a really nice orgasm reading 27's posts?

W*GS

07-01-2006, 09:00 AM

Frankly I'm dissapointed in the level of difficulty you presented in this discussion. I expected more.

The litany of unwarranted unassumptions, misinformation, disinformation, and miscategorizations that you've presented in your tirade is truly beyond belief. It's quite clear that you're capable of little more than binary thinking - that my disagreement with portions of your arguments means I disagree with all of it, and that I therefore must be a crony of evil corporate overlords. Geezus, wadda ridiculous and wholly unsubstantiated view!

I don't need to provide a "better number". I only need to expose the one that exists as phoney, and suggest a reasonable alternative, which I have.

You can present any number you like. How you derive that number is actually completely irrelevant.

The core issue, which you've utterly failed to address, is whether or not there should even be a minimum wage. You accept as given that there must be one - without ever providing evidence as to why. Since you can't even get that far, random series of values for it are moot.

Since you seem to think that it's a priori evident that the MW must exist, and that its current value is (obviously) much too low, what reasoning can you provide that the "proper" value isn't double, or 10x, or 100x, whatever number you choose?

1. At some point the minimum wage must be raised. It should not, and can not remain frozen forever.

There you go again, assuming that which isn't proven.

3. Economic forecasts that focus only on what benefits big business are unreliable indicators of reality and designed to decieve the public.

That's because you base your argument for raising the MW on one very narrow metric, corporate profits. You restrict yourself to that narrow data, and then are stunned when I don't accept it as the be-all and end-all of relevant data. Your amazement doesn't mean you've proven me wrong - that you've failed to consider other far more relevant measures is your true weakness.

4. Business has no underlying inherrant birthright to establish itself as the lone center of influence on the economy in a capitalistic society.

Who said it did? That strawman is long since dead. I suggest you quit beating it.

5. Government, though imperfect, is the arbitrator of record in determining what restraints and protections are built into the system to afford checks and balances neccessary to protect the interests of all involved.

There's a wide gulf between the ideal governmental involvement in economic matters, and the one (that has the necessary power) that you propose. Once again, you assume as given that which has not been proven.

These are the bedrock issues here, each of which I have addressed and you have not.

You define as "bedrock" that which is actually quite a few floors up.

I've identified the need to forecast the economy on two fronts; one that impacts business and one that impacts labor.

You can't cleave economic issues so neatly and easily. Just to take as given all that which you've assumed, raising the MW doesn't merely impact business (your shorthand for those evil corporate overlords), it impacts labor as well. The proof is left as an exercise for you.

The REAL issue is one you've been unable to address; that economic indicators are weighted towards what impacts production (business) and do not adequately address demand (labor and consumers).

As I've shown, that you've picked one single indicator (corporate profits) and based almost your entire argument upon it really doesn't mean anything, since there are many many indicators from which one could choose.

Why have you done this?

And what follows is a flight of fancy and a series of strawmen that you pummel. Pity that for your argument, you assume nearly all and prove nearly nothing.

Simple...your slavish devotion to libertarian political ideology blinds you to common sense...

Interestingly, I find that it's you who lacks sense, common and otherwise.

Thus, you're economic model is flawed beyond repair because you fundamentally missunderstand capitalism, it's strengths, it's legitimate goals and it's history.

It's your strawman model that's flawed - and it's not my economic model.

Silly man.

You remove labor from their legitimate right to influence the process as stakeholders and you do this by discussing impact on the economy only in terms of what impacts business interests, pretending that market forces that negatively impact business are illigitimate whether they are important to labor or not.

If you can find proof that I've ever made the above argument, I'd be most thankful.

Your weak attempt to suggest that employment is impacted negatively by a raise in the MW is also flawed...but again you failed to read the thread. Current research has suggested this is false, and surveys of economists have shown over half dissagree with you.

Truth or falsity of a given claim is not subject to majority/minority opinion. That said, the theoretical and actual underpinnings regarding the MW are rather complicated; your handwaving over them tells me you really don't understand the issue.

Finally, you pretend that since I distrust government, government should have no role. Yet it really doesn't matter whether you or I think they should or should not influence the process because the fact is government DOES have control, whether you like it or not.

And another genuine bedrock issue which you ignore.

You accept the "is", without even regarding the "ought".

Foolilshly you contend that government "interference" be defined as intruding into the market forces on behalf of labor, but this logic is absurd given that government excercises control over LABOR if they do NOTHING...because they then pave the way for rampant abuse of the worker at the hands of the corporation.

One of the biggest myths of the Left is that the State, in interfering in economic matters, is what "saves" the honorable working man from the predations of the evil corporate overlords. That's another wholly unjustifiable argument.

Again...your assumption that business is blessed with some underlying inherrant right to control the markets to their own advantage without acknowledging the claims of other stakeholders is spurious, reeks of classism, and is flat out stupid.

Indeed it is stupid - which is why I've never made the claim you allege.

You're implicitly claiming that without State control, "business" will control markets without restraint. That's a completely incorrect view - and that you even believe it makes me "question whether you know anything at all about economics."

You've offered no information to suggest you can do more than complain about anything that impacts the corporate bottom line,

Another instance of disinformation about my views. Don't you get tired from the exertions involved in misstating my views, attacking them, and patting yourself on the back for a job well done?

So far all I've heard is blind and missguided devotion to political ideology that believes government has no legitimate role in mediating economic policy if it interferes with the "rights" of Wall Street.

And this is the basic flaw upon which your entire argument rests. There are a number of errors contained within it, which, if you're clever, you'll discover and correct, using what I've actually written as evidence, rather than your oh-so-present strawmen.

Five basic nexus points of importance reflect the legitimate framework for this discussion.

There are many more than five, and, dare I say, you're hardly the sole decider of what constitutes the "legitimate framework" for the issue. Those who do such things are merely attempt to bolster their own arguments by arbitrarily setting the limits of debate; what that really shows is just how weak and ineffective their arguments are, because they just don't work outside their self-decided arena.

Spider

07-01-2006, 09:57 AM

The litany of unwarranted unassumptions, misinformation, disinformation, and miscategorizations that you've presented in your tirade is truly beyond belief. It's quite clear that you're capable of little more than binary thinking - that my disagreement with portions of your arguments means I disagree with all of it, and that I therefore must be a crony of evil corporate overlords. Geezus, wadda ridiculous and wholly unsubstantiated view!

You can present any number you like. How you derive that number is actually completely irrelevant.

The core issue, which you've utterly failed to address, is whether or not there should even be a minimum wage. You accept as given that there must be one - without ever providing evidence as to why. Since you can't even get that far, random series of values for it are moot.

Since you seem to think that it's a priori evident that the MW must exist, and that its current value is (obviously) much too low, what reasoning can you provide that the "proper" value isn't double, or 10x, or 100x, whatever number you choose?

There you go again, assuming that which isn't proven.

That's because you base your argument for raising the MW on one very narrow metric, corporate profits. You restrict yourself to that narrow data, and then are stunned when I don't accept it as the be-all and end-all of relevant data. Your amazement doesn't mean you've proven me wrong - that you've failed to consider other far more relevant measures is your true weakness.

Who said it did? That strawman is long since dead. I suggest you quit beating it.

There's a wide gulf between the ideal governmental involvement in economic matters, and the one (that has the necessary power) that you propose. Once again, you assume as given that which has not been proven.

You define as "bedrock" that which is actually quite a few floors up.

You can't cleave economic issues so neatly and easily. Just to take as given all that which you've assumed, raising the MW doesn't merely impact business (your shorthand for those evil corporate overlords), it impacts labor as well. The proof is left as an exercise for you.

As I've shown, that you've picked one single indicator (corporate profits) and based almost your entire argument upon it really doesn't mean anything, since there are many many indicators from which one could choose.

And what follows is a flight of fancy and a series of strawmen that you pummel. Pity that for your argument, you assume nearly all and prove nearly nothing.

Interestingly, I find that it's you who lacks sense, common and otherwise.

It's your strawman model that's flawed - and it's not my economic model.

Silly man.

If you can find proof that I've ever made the above argument, I'd be most thankful.

Truth or falsity of a given claim is not subject to majority/minority opinion. That said, the theoretical and actual underpinnings regarding the MW are rather complicated; your handwaving over them tells me you really don't understand the issue.

And another genuine bedrock issue which you ignore.

You accept the "is", without even regarding the "ought".

One of the biggest myths of the Left is that the State, in interfering in economic matters, is what "saves" the honorable working man from the predations of the evil corporate overlords. That's another wholly unjustifiable argument.

Indeed it is stupid - which is why I've never made the claim you allege.

You're implicitly claiming that without State control, "business" will control markets without restraint. That's a completely incorrect view - and that you even believe it makes me "question whether you know anything at all about economics."

Another instance of disinformation about my views. Don't you get tired from the exertions involved in misstating my views, attacking them, and patting yourself on the back for a job well done?

And this is the basic flaw upon which your entire argument rests. There are a number of errors contained within it, which, if you're clever, you'll discover and correct, using what I've actually written as evidence, rather than your oh-so-present strawmen.

There are many more than five, and, dare I say, you're hardly the sole decider of what constitutes the "legitimate framework" for the issue. Those who do such things are merely attempt to bolster their own arguments by arbitrarily setting the limits of debate; what that really shows is just how weak and ineffective their arguments are, because they just don't work outside their self-decided arena.

you forgot to blame Clinton .......

footstepsfrom#27

07-01-2006, 10:21 AM

W*GS

07-01-2006, 10:36 AM

Pity.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-01-2006, 03:25 PM

Time is valuable, and I consider mine VERY valuable. Having searched in vain for a fact...ANY fact...somewhere in W*GS response, upon which to sustain some sort of meaningful dialogue and justify this excercise...and come up short...I think it's time I move on to something more productive than arguing with somebody whose only consistent response is not far removed from "liar liar pants on fire" or "I'm rubber and you're glue and whatever you say bounes off me and sticks to you." Good day sir.

I Moc around?;D

Heh heh heh! :laugh:

It became abundantly clear that you had W*GS' number right here:

You're argument amounts to a poor political attempt to fend off common sense.

And here:

...your slavish devotion to libertarian political ideology blinds you to common sense...so you think that somehow business has some inherrant underlying RIGHT to be considered the sole voice of what is acceptable and what is not because you do not acknowledge working people as a stakeholder in this economy.

Good work exposing this logically challenged, ethically bankrupt fraud. :thumbs:

W*GS

07-01-2006, 04:02 PM

Good work exposing this logically challenged, ethically bankrupt fraud.

Your apprenticeship as a boot-licking toady is almost complete.

That said, you'd do well to adopt 27's style - note that his views were presented with very little juvenile snippy name-calling, lame-o 'bartcop' images, and without your tired worn-out tactic of calling everyone a "Bushbot" or a "reich-winger" or whatever stupidity strikes you as fitting on a given day.

That said, 27 still didn't prove his argument.

This comment fits very well:

Although there is a risk that higher minimum wages could hurt young, low-skilled workers by weakening job growth or training, the evidence is too sparse and sketchy to make a convincing case either way. But having watched conservatives in action on other ballot initiatives, Democratic politicians have learnt that the best way to deal with this sort of nuance and lack of evidence is to profess total confidence and brand your opponents as wicked.

Spider

07-01-2006, 04:05 PM

Your apprenticeship as a boot-licking toady is almost complete.

presented with very little juvenile snippy name-calling, lame-o 'bartcop'
didnt yo just post a cato talking point ?
whats the difference in Cato and bartcop ?
specialy to a libertarian as yourself /

W*GS

07-01-2006, 04:14 PM

whats the difference in Cato and bartcop ?

You tell me.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-01-2006, 04:17 PM

didnt yo just post a cato talking point ?
whats the difference in Cato and bartcop ?
specialy to a libertarian as yourself /

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

The O'W*GS Factor just experienced the worst beatdown of his Internet life at the hands of footstepsfrom#27, and he's doing the only thing a BushCo brownie hound can do in this circumstance:

"Bartcop!"

:D

Spider

07-01-2006, 04:18 PM

You tell me.
exactly yet you posted somthing from the Cato handbook and passed it off as fact ......let me explain somthing to you , if the site you are looking at doesnt show bothsides , then it is Biased ........
if you post somthing from those sites as fact , you are just posting 1 persons point of view , or how 1 person sees things ......
you dont like LABF , but yet tou do the same things , From the economist , to cato .......

W*GS

07-01-2006, 04:25 PM

exactly yet you posted somthing from the Cato handbook and passed it off as fact ......

The Cato excerpt I supplied succinctly and accurately described the rights-infringing aspect of Clinton's taggant scheme.

Provide evidence otherwise.

Spider

07-01-2006, 04:30 PM

The Cato excerpt I supplied succinctly and accurately described the rights-infringing aspect of Clinton's taggant scheme.

Provide evidence otherwise.
Well from what I understand that if explosives were used , then a taggnant was found , it allowed the FBI to investigate the Explosive manufactures and it was also to prevent Stockpiling of Explosives .....
Now Cato spun this to include gun powder also ....... and now you are telling me that isnt biased or misleading ......
you dug a deep enough hole with 27 ....

W*GS

07-01-2006, 05:26 PM

Now Cato spun this to include gun powder also .......

That's not Cato spin - that was the actual intent of Clinton's scheme. Powder would have had taggants in it, and possession of powder without taggants would have been prosecuted as a federal felony.

Spider

07-01-2006, 06:05 PM

That's not Cato spin - that was the actual intent of Clinton's scheme. Powder would have had taggants in it, and possession of powder without taggants would have been prosecuted as a federal felony.
if they used it in a pip bomb damn right , now you are not going to tell me that making pipe bombs should be legal ....... good grief talk about spin ..... Cato and W*GS Spin and Spinster

W*GS

07-01-2006, 06:20 PM

Let's keep this on the relevant thread, shall we?

W*GS

07-01-2006, 06:34 PM

Oh, and how does that saying go?

"Discredit the messenger and pretend you've discredited the message"?

Spider

07-01-2006, 06:38 PM

Oh, and how does that saying go?

"Discredit the messenger and pretend you've discredited the message"?
what part of Pipe bomb didnt you get ?
or didnt you know that gunpowder is used in pipe bombs ?
So now you feel pretty stupid , thats what you get for taking the Cato instatute word on anything ........

W*GS

07-01-2006, 06:44 PM

what part of Pipe bomb didnt you get ?
or didnt you know that gunpowder is used in pipe bombs ?

Show me how taggants would prevent the construction of pipe bombs by terrorists.

Spider

07-01-2006, 06:53 PM

Show me how taggants would prevent the construction of pipe bombs by terrorists.
did on the other thread . dont blame me cause you jumped in without knowing how deep the water was .... you screwed up Cato led you astray , hardly my fault ......

W*GS

07-01-2006, 06:56 PM

did on the other thread .

A Clinton speech?

That's lame, even for you...

Spider

07-01-2006, 07:00 PM

A Clinton speech?

That's lame, even for you...
well you asked about pipe bombs ....... I am sure you was ignorant to the fact that Gun Powder has many uses , you saw Gun powder and went on a crusade about rights before you knew anything that was going on , you let your hatred for Clinton cloud your vision , now you have been called out on it , and it doesnt feel good , you wound up looking like an ass .. oh and i thought the man that created the bill would be a good reference point .........

W*GS

07-01-2006, 07:08 PM

I already showed how Clinton's use of Switzerland as an example of how tagging works is completely false; that you ignore a major hit against your argument sounds a lot like desperation to me.

Besides, the big flaw in your argument is that even if all gunpowder, smokeless powder, and black powder were tagged, it wouldn't have impacted the 9/11 terrorists in the slightest. The fatal mistake is that assuming terrorists and criminals will obey the law.

Next, you'll be telling me ballistic fingerprinting works...

Spider

07-01-2006, 07:51 PM

W*GS

07-01-2006, 08:09 PM

You're blowing something, Spider - I'm just not sure what it is...

Spider

07-01-2006, 08:16 PM

You're blowing something, Spider - I'm just not sure what it is...
oh snap ...... you cant defend you far out radical views , so now I am blowing somthing hey ......... if I shoved a stick up your ass son we would have stupid on a stick ;D

W*GS

07-01-2006, 08:25 PM

oh snap ...... you cant defend you far out radical views

Yep, limited government and individual rights - them's radical, I tell ya!

Spider

07-01-2006, 08:29 PM

Yep, limited government and individual rights - them's radical, I tell ya!
LOL , I love how you forgot the temper tantrum you threw over the waiting period for a gun , or several other views you have on politics .......
you are a mix of Ward Churchill and timothy McViegh ...... a millant Ward if you will .....

Cito Pelon

07-01-2006, 09:16 PM

LOL , I love how you forgot the temper tantrum you threw over the waiting period for a gun , or several other views you have on politics .......
you are a mix of Ward Churchill and timothy McViegh ...... a millant Ward if you will .....

W*gs will do anything in his power to weaken the US. I can see the pattern of his arguments, and all are meant to weaken the will of the US, meant to divide and conquer so whoever he works for - Al-Quaeda, Putin or whoever - have a weaker US to contend with. It's the old "disinformation" ploy COMINTERN used for years and years and years. Keep up the good work, Spide.

Spider

07-01-2006, 09:24 PM

W*gs will do anything in his power to weaken the US. I can see the pattern of his arguments, and all are meant to weaken the will of the US, meant to divide and conquer so whoever he works for - Al-Quaeda, Putin or whoever - have a weaker US to contend with. It's the old "disinformation" ploy COMINTERN used for years and years and years. Keep up the good work, Spide.
you nailed it ..... ;D

W*GS

07-01-2006, 10:30 PM

LOL , I love how you forgot the temper tantrum you threw over the waiting period for a gun

You disremember... Happens when one's brain is damaged by abuse of alcohol...

or several other views you have on politics .......
you are a mix of Ward Churchill and timothy McViegh ...... a millant Ward if you will .....

As always, when your argument is flat-out gone, you resort to the cheap smear.

W*GS

07-01-2006, 10:31 PM

W*gs will do anything in his power to weaken the US. I can see the pattern of his arguments, and all are meant to weaken the will of the US, meant to divide and conquer so whoever he works for - Al-Quaeda, Putin or whoever - have a weaker US to contend with. It's the old "disinformation" ploy COMINTERN used for years and years and years.

You never fail to make my jaw drop in amazement, Cito.

I expect opinions from Left field. Yours come from somewhere out by Neptune.

Spider

07-01-2006, 10:36 PM

You disremember... Happens when one's brain is damaged by abuse of alcohol... Are you denying you said a right delayed is a right denied ?

As always, when your argument is flat-out gone, you resort to the cheap smear.
Cheap but true .........

W*GS

07-01-2006, 10:42 PM

Are you denying you said a right delayed is a right denied ?

Nope - but calling that a "temper tantrum" is just plain ridiculous.

Cheap but true .........

Hardly.

Spider

07-01-2006, 10:54 PM

Nope - but calling that a "temper tantrum" is just plain ridiculous. oh come off it you was ranting like a 5 year old ......

Hardly.
In W*GS world were arming terrorist is a good thing .......

W*GS

07-01-2006, 11:02 PM

oh come off it you was ranting like a 5 year old ......

Your opinions are, shall we say, rather suspect.

In W*GS world were arming terrorist is a good thing .......

I'm not willing to trade my liberties for what the government promises me will be more safety. Why are you?

Spider

07-01-2006, 11:17 PM

Your opinions are, shall we say, rather suspect.
LOL if you say so ........

I'm not willing to trade my liberties for what the government promises me will be more safety. Why are you?
funny i dont think a felon or a terrorist should own a firearm , I would say stupid people also but you would never own a gun if that was the case

W*GS

07-01-2006, 11:22 PM

funny i dont think a felon or a terrorist should own a firearm ,

And you're depending on felons and terrorists to go to Guns-R-Us and fill out the paperwork and get caught.

Riiiiiight...

Spider

07-01-2006, 11:22 PM

And you're depending on felons and terrorists to go to Guns-R-Us and fill out the paperwork and get caught.

Riiiiiight...
sure captian forrest

W*GS

07-01-2006, 11:28 PM

sure captian forrest

If you think background checks are gonna keep terrorists from getting guns, well, I can't really argue against that idiocy.

Spider

07-02-2006, 12:05 AM

If you think background checks are gonna keep terrorists from getting guns, well, I can't really argue against that idiocy.
of course not , you have your own Brand of idiotcy ..........called radicalism

broncocalijohn

07-02-2006, 12:55 AM

In some cases.

You make it sound like this is what happens to everyone who needs a "handout" at some point or another.

This is simply not true.

There are a lot of people for whom dependence of food stamps and the like is just a temporary, transitional thing.

I suppose you consider things like Pell Grants government "handouts" too.

You are right on this case LABF. I have no problem with temporary help ie. unemployment insurance (even though we pay into it). Food stamps and such should be temporary but seems some are on 3rd generation "help". Handouts like student loans at 0% or lower than the average rate is good for the country as the output of the recepient using the "handout" far outways the negative of the loan.With the discussion at issue, minumum wage for each individual should be temporary not a wage scale at a long permanent time of work. It is a building block for all.

broncocalijohn

07-02-2006, 01:10 AM

Broncocalijohn pats himself on the back for dropping out of college and working below his ability for 17 years in order to glory in his "bllue collar" pedigree...but thinks the mistake a 15 year old girl makes in the back seat of a car should be one she pays for the rest of her life.

Interesting...

Didnt know me dropping out of college to start my business (the last 17 years) was a mistake. Dude, i dont know where you come up with some of quotes you pin on me but first, i didnt have 11k to start my business. Go back and read the quote. I started my business with $30. The $11K did or would not stop my ability to continue my business. Am i working under my ability for dropping out of college? Who knows. Many got their degree then work at a completely different arena and even have a job that didnt need a degree. If working under my ability is making more than 90% of my customers in real estate industry, then so be it as I will take it. I chose to drop out. I am more blue collar to describe that i am not some suit guy that Dems think are out of the loop. I love your quote on top about the 15 year old girl. So, we are responsible for the girl that had sex at a young age, probably didnt have protection and now, as you say, is screwed for the rest of her life? I didnt knock her up, she made that decision. What a lame sentence for an arguement. We should also be responsible for parents that split up and kids grow up in a single household. Why should we be responsible for this mess? I, in fact, did have parents that split when I was 12. I didnt ask my teachers to give me a better grade because I suffered for a semester over my parents break up. I took it and tried harder as I knew the consequences. I know many democrats in my life but your examples of helping all problem folks even when they are at complete fault is the best socialist way of thinking. That isnt America. With the 4th coming around, I couldnt imagine what our great fighters to start this country would have to put up with your way of thinking.

W*GS

07-02-2006, 07:09 AM

of course not , you have your own Brand of idiotcy ..........called radicalism

Yep, limited government and individual rights - them's radical, I tell ya!

How do you propose keeping terrorists from getting guns?

Spider

07-02-2006, 07:18 AM

Yep, limited government and individual rights - them's radical, I tell ya!

How do you propose keeping terrorists from getting guns?
LOL W*GS keep spinning Junior ,you have been exposed , the NRA has been exposed , oh I could play your silly game and ask , why do you feel Terrorist and Felons deserve the same rights as a law abiding citizen , but we both know I will only get NRA talking points ......... you are a radical , you try to down play this , you tell everyone oh I am Libertarian ,yet your political views are far right ......
the moreyou post , the more people see this .......... I get asked alot , why do you even respond to W*GS ?
i tell them I love watching you lose control ....... So continue on with your Terrorist and Felons have the same rights as Law abiding citizens , I am sure there are some Ted Nugent types that buys that bull , as for me and the rest , we understand that owning a gun bears responcibility , and if you cant follow the law , then you lose rights ........ Simple as that

W*GS

07-02-2006, 07:44 AM

Spider

07-02-2006, 07:58 AM

All that blather and no answer for my question...

The only "exposure" in your post, Spider, was that you resort to cheap personal attacks and smears when you're stumped. Very LABF-like. Were you two conjoined at one time?
LOL , you got an answer . you just didnt pick up on it ...........I resort to cheap attacks ?
Hilarious! I suppose you dont ? i suppose you are above that ....... :~ohyah!:
oh W*GS , I gotta ask ....... Are you Bipolar ? ADHD ? suffer some head injury that effects your memory ?

Spider

07-02-2006, 08:30 AM

Let me sum up your argument W*GS ......
High Oil prices = Clintons fault ,Clinton had sex in a SUV so you enjoy the high prices , cause you cant stand the thought of Clinton having a good time in a SUV so in your mind nobody should have them ....
Economy= Clintons Fault ........ part of a big conspiracy , make the economy fail so Bush looks bad ....
Brady Bill= Clintons fault .... it is obvious Bill wants illegal Gays to come to your house , Take your guns and burn a flag on your front lawn .....
Katrinia = Clintons fault ....... Clinton wasto busy working out a plan with ted kennedy to make Bush look bad , and to take your Guns , if more people had Guns , they could have shot their way out of New orleans
the flood of the Big thompson Canyon Back in 76 = Clintons fault ......if Clinton didnt try and take everyones guns , the people could have shot thier way out of the Canyon .....
the war on terror = Clintons fault , though Clinton put the resources in to capture the scum involved .....that was just to fool everyone , Clinton allowed terror to help him control Guns ......
AIDs = Clearly Clintons fault , Clinton invented AIDs so he could help his wife pass universal health care .......
Nagin = Clintons fault , Clinton and Nagin have a plan , Nagin look incompetent to make Bush look bad .....
Illegal imagration = Clintons fault , if he hadnt had that affair with Monica , then people wouldnt think that Sex is a perk in America ......
N.Korea having Nukes = This is clearly Clintons fault , If Clinton wasnt so busy getting some , Clinton would have had moretime to keep an eye on rumsfeld and stopped Rummy from Selling Nuclear parts to Kim Jong Ill ....
Iam sure there is more I am forgetting ......

W*GS

07-02-2006, 08:31 AM

Now you're just ranting...

Behold Spider in a tizzy, folks...

Spider

07-02-2006, 08:34 AM

Now you're just ranting...

Behold Spider in a tizzy, folks...
LOL ...... and a damn good tizzy it is .got spit flying everywhere , banging on the keys so hard the guy next door thought I was running a jackhammer .....

footstepsfrom#27

07-02-2006, 09:43 AM

Why should we be responsible for this mess?
Find a place in this thread where I suggested you or anyone else should be responsible for somebody elses mistakes.
I know many democrats in my life but your examples of helping all problem folks even when they are at complete fault is the best socialist way of thinking.
Paying fair market wages has nothing to do with socialism, and increasing the minimum wage is no more coming out of your pocket than it is when a guy making $80K a year gets a raise to $85K or a company purchases new computers. If you're referencing my suggestions about CDFI's and NEZ's, you're not only benefitting from federal investment; you're benefiting significantly.
That isnt America. With the 4th coming around, I couldnt imagine what our great fighters to start this country would have to put up with your way of thinking.
A rather poor comparison if you're looking to build a case for being self reliant, considering the fact that the economy at the time prospered on the back of trafficing in human beings as slaves...don't ya think?

W*GS

07-02-2006, 11:25 AM

LOL ...... and a damn good tizzy it is .got spit flying everywhere , banging on the keys so hard the guy next door thought I was running a jackhammer .....

To be more accurate, change the "p" in "spit" to an "h".

broncocalijohn

07-02-2006, 11:38 AM

Find a place in this thread where I suggested you or anyone else should be responsible for somebody elses mistakes.

All of your post have this. You want me to responsible for the family on min. wage or how about the 15 year old that got knocked up. Their mistakes or lack of planning causes me to pay for their mistakes.

Paying fair market wages has nothing to do with socialism, and increasing the minimum wage is no more coming out of your pocket than it is when a guy making $80K a year gets a raise to $85K or a company purchases new computers. If you're referencing my suggestions about CDFI's and NEZ's, you're not only benefitting from federal investment; you're benefiting significantly.

What is Fair market wages? Shouldnt the market decide fair market wages? You, me or congress cant do this. You want to impliment what is fair but it isnt necessarily market wage. This is socialism. Government deciding a pay scale. It isnt extreme but it is more socialism than what is a free market. You get paid what you are worth. I agree that there needs to be some minimum wage only because it gives an AMERICAN a better wage than what the companies might pay an illegal alien if there wasnt a minimum wage.

A rather poor comparison if you're looking to build a case for being self reliant, considering the fact that the economy at the time prospered on the back of trafficing in human beings as slaves...don't ya think?

Didnt know everyone owned slaves in 1776. In fact, a very small percentage did and in the North how many owned slaves? You need a reality check on your history. Regardless if we had slaves in 1776, we had set a way of a man with self reliance a far cry of what we have today.

Spider

07-02-2006, 12:03 PM

All of your post have this. You want me to responsible for the family on min. wage or how about the 15 year old that got knocked up. Their mistakes or lack of planning causes me to pay for their mistakes.

.
So then why do I have to support big busuness , with my tax dollars ?
Should big business be able to survive off the merits of thier services instead of corperate welfare ?

Spider

07-02-2006, 12:06 PM

Since we are at it , lets cut aid to small business also , they should be able to stand on their own ......... Lets cut all the tax loopholes they have , make them stand or fail ...... but lets stop supporting Comapnies big or small with Tax dollars ........ I shouldnt have my tax dollars going to support some business I never go to .........

W*GS

07-02-2006, 12:10 PM

Spider

07-02-2006, 12:13 PM

To be more accurate, change the "p" in "spit" to an "h".
Change the P in spit to a H ..... i didnt know you was inviting me over for dinner:approve: ......But I have to decline .......

footstepsfrom#27

07-02-2006, 04:08 PM

All of your post have this. You want me to responsible for the family on min. wage or how about the 15 year old that got knocked up. Their mistakes or lack of planning causes me to pay for their mistakes.
You need to invest in a good remedial reading program...one that demonstrates the art of contextual understanding. Nowhere on this thread did I say anything of the sort. I was responding to your idiotic comments about people being losers. Trust me...I don't want you to be responsible for ANYTHING...OK?
What is Fair market wages? Shouldnt the market decide fair market wages? You, me or congress cant do this. You want to impliment what is fair but it isnt necessarily market wage.
I'm not going through this again...certainly not with you. Read the thread please...more than once if that's neccessary.
This is socialism. Government deciding a pay scale. It isnt extreme but it is more socialism than what is a free market.
Look up "socialism" in a dictionary please.
You get paid what you are worth. I agree that there needs to be some minimum wage only because it gives an AMERICAN a better wage than what the companies might pay an illegal alien if there wasnt a minimum wage.
Now you're debating yourself.
Didnt know everyone owned slaves in 1776. In fact, a very small percentage did and in the North how many owned slaves? You need a reality check on your history. Regardless if we had slaves in 1776, we had set a way of a man with self reliance a far cry of what we have today.
The legal sanctioning of the kidnap, murder and enslavement of millions of human beings in order to fuel an agrarian economy and the entitlement culture of the south hardly speaks to self reliance...not suprising that you don't get it though.

I suppose the market should have decided that question too...eh? :loopy:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-02-2006, 04:52 PM

sure captian forrest

:laugh:

It's hard to believe this clown is still hanging around on this thread after getting his ass handed to him by footsteps.

:D

W*GS

07-02-2006, 05:00 PM

It's hard to believe this clown is still hanging around on this thread after getting his ass handed to him by footsteps.

:bs:

alkemical

07-03-2006, 08:13 AM

Heres a question, and a ramble: If a company like BP is in trouble for fixing the pricing for the propane market(s), how can we trust the 'open' market would result in fair and honest wages?

What's to prevent companies from colluding and fixing that market? If CEO's are paying the top level of management beyond what would be considered ethical, robbing employees of a future (Henry Ford knew you had to pay people good, because they had to BUY your PRODUCT, duh!) how can we trust that it won't return to pre union days where everyone works for the wages and conditions that exist now elsewhere in the world?

W*GS

07-03-2006, 08:21 AM

Since the government has engaged in all manner of activities that prey on our rights, since time immemorial, how can we trust it to protect us?

alkemical

07-03-2006, 08:23 AM

That's not really an answer wags. Nice try for the redirect... ;)

Bronco_Beerslug

07-03-2006, 08:25 AM

Since the government has engaged in all manner of activities that prey on our rights, since time immemorial, how can we trust it to protect us?

LOL

I think libertarians probably ought to find a small island somewhere that they can all gather on so they can govern themselves without ..... "government".

alkemical

07-03-2006, 08:27 AM

LOL

I think libertarians probably ought to find a small island somewhere that they can all gather on so they can govern themselves without ..... "government".

Actuallty N.H. is trying (search the 'free state project').

I'd also like to add, i am an anarchist. But i'm willing to comprise. But it has to be outlined as to what is law in the Constitution. I understand until the rest of you catch up ;) true self government will not happen.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 08:36 AM

I think libertarians probably ought to find a small island somewhere that they can all gather on so they can govern themselves without ..... "government".

Libertarians aren't anarchists.

I'm still waiting for evidence that liberals aren't authoritarians.

broncocalijohn

07-03-2006, 10:44 AM

HERE IS footstep27’s quote to me “Find a place in this thread where I suggested you or anyone else should be responsible for somebody elses mistakes.”
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.orangemane.com/BB/ /><o:p></o:p> </P><P><o:p></o:p></P><P><o:p></o:p></P><P><FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>Broncocalijohn pats himself on the back for dropping out of college and working below his ability for 17 years in order to glory in his but thinks the mistake a 15 year old girl makes in the back seat of a car should be one she pays for the rest of her life.</B>

So 27 she shouldn’t pay for her own mistakes suggesting we, society, should. There is your quote looking for being responsible for someone’s mistake. I am suggesting responsibility as in paying ($) for her burden of her mistake. Maybe you were thinking that it was a blame game which I was not. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
“So you grew up in a house...had two parents...and got financial backing to open a business, yet in spite of this support system, YOU in fact DID make a costly mistake by dropping out of community college. Interesting...wonder how far you'd have gotten if you had one parent and lived in some drug and crime infested inner city neighborhood appartment and didn't have anyone to give you $11,000? Maybe you'd be working a minimum wage job.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
No way, I have too much pride to work for that crap. No problem starting out at minimum wage, but to live off of it… you are nuts. Why is it so hard to understand that poor people cant get out of minimum wage? The job might have other positions at higher pay as they work longer and harder to get to that pay scale. They might still be considered poor in many eyes but have much more in wages than what is offered at min. wage scale. Come back with “oh you don’t realize they have 3 kids to support.” There might be the biggest problem. It is one thing to lack the drive to work hard and strive for a better way of life. But, it seems many drop out of school, have kids out of wedlock, then have nothing in support for themselves and/or kids. They put themselves in this creative problem. It is time these people stop their way of living. Grandmas at 36 years old, highest grade finished among 4 generations is 10<SUP>th</SUP> grade, etc. You don’t need college to get out of this bottom of life. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Another one from footsteps 27:”Why is it always the people whose upbringing has least prepared them for the ability to avoid mistakes in life that we blame the most when they make those mistakes?”

I don't get that...<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 27.75pt; HEIGHT: 11.25pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/huh.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Rudy\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_im age001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Easy Sherlock, if they are making the mistakes, should we then blame ourselves? If you think so, you better watch your answer as you might prove my point of……..” Find a place on this thread where I suggested you or anyone else should be responsible for somebody elses mistake?”<o:p></o:p>

broncocalijohn

07-03-2006, 10:59 AM

ANother one from footstepsfrom27, "I realize you're no rocket scientist, but lets put that partial community college education to work here shall we? $5.15 x 60 hours= $309 x 52 weeks= $16,068 minus 20% taxes= $12,854.40/12 months= $1,071.20 per month'

$1,071 a month is what you're left with after taxes if you can manage to work 60 hours a week every week of the year. And you find time to go to school...when?...during this time? Some people can do that...some can't. I know...they're losers.

I think you forgot that since they are below the tax scale, they will receive their taxes back (or most if not all). They also get health care probably for free. They most likely have dependents and are grade school.... free lunches. Need food on the table, you qualify for food stamps. Cant afford rent, we got vouchers for that too. Seems you forgot many advantages they get to live off their low income level pay. If someone was working at 40 hours a week than got another part time job at $5.50 an hour (5.50 times 20 hours = $110 a week) then multiply by 50 (we give 4 weeks break or less hours equals 48 weeks) $5500 extra from the previous year. Do that for only two years (we wont increase the pay because the boss is a meany) and you now have $11k not to add any interest. Seems that type of cashola would get many out of down luck. If not, it would be a good start. If they can and dont do this or even a portion of my scenario, how do you feel about them now?

footstepsfrom#27

07-03-2006, 11:04 AM

footstepsfrom#27

07-03-2006, 11:28 AM

I think you forgot that since they are below the tax scale, they will receive their taxes back (or most if not all). They also get health care probably for free. They most likely have dependents and are grade school.... free lunches. Need food on the table, you qualify for food stamps. Cant afford rent, we got vouchers for that too. Seems you forgot many advantages they get to live off their low income level pay.
So your argument is that they are actually overpaid? LOL
You're argument fails to consider that working and making "to much money" removes people from government benefits, so your model is worthless because it's not reality.

Broncocalijohn is now arguing that government welfare programs actually empower people to get off government welfare programs...ergo, his logic says to continue paying a substandard wage so they can continue to be "empowered"...
If someone was working at 40 hours a week than got another part time job at $5.50 an hour (5.50 times 20 hours = $110 a week) then multiply by 50 (we give 4 weeks break or less hours equals 48 weeks) $5500 extra from the previous year. Do that for only two years (we wont increase the pay because the boss is a meany) and you now have $11k not to add any interest. Seems that type of cashola would get many out of down luck. If not, it would be a good start. If they can and dont do this or even a portion of my scenario, how do you feel about them now?
You're working with the same numbers I already gave you... Just because you qualify it out as a seperate job...doesn't mean squat.

Even if they kept every dime...which they don't since social security still comes out...and people lose their benefits when they start making any money...you're still talking about $15,345 a year. Now show me somebody who can bank $5k on that salary who is not living in their parents basement and eating their food...please.

FYI dude...the waiting list for government assistance these days in the form of housing is well over a year here in Dallas...sometimes up to 2 years...and for all the free health care you're worried about paying for... As with most things...it's often worth what you pay for it...which is why so many poor kids have substandard health as well.

Are you bitching about the corporate welfare to billionaires or just to single moms making $5 an hour?

alkemical

07-03-2006, 11:29 AM

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 12:39 PM

anyone?

Federal Anti-Trust laws prevent price fixing.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 12:43 PM

Federal Anti-Trust laws prevent price fixing.

Unless a cartel is exempt - for example, MLB and the NFL.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 12:54 PM

Unless a cartel is exempt - for example, MLB and the NFL.

Those aren't cartels.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 01:04 PM

Those aren't cartels.

The NFL certainly engages in price-fixing... Legally, too.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 01:12 PM

The NFL certainly engages in price-fixing... Legally, too.

How?

Bronco_Beerslug

07-03-2006, 01:13 PM

Libertarians aren't anarchists. Says you but you won't find many people agreeing with that "idea". Anyone who thinks that 300 million people can exist without laws and government is ignorant IMO.

I'm still waiting for evidence that liberals aren't authoritarians. Don't you know, all party's believe that they know more than the "other" party.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 01:14 PM

How?

Every player that gets drafted has to work for that team - he can't play the teams against each other to get more money.

alkemical

07-03-2006, 01:16 PM

Federal Anti-Trust laws prevent price fixing.

Don't seem to be doing a good job now does it.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 01:17 PM

Says you but you won't find many people agreeing with that "idea". Anyone who thinks that 300 million people can exist without laws and government is ignorant IMO.

Indeed. Like I said, libertarians aren't anarchists. When are you going to quit your nonsensical claims otherwise?

Don't you know, all party's believe that they know more than the "other" party.

The Libertarians are about the only party that doesn't claim to know what's best for you - as opposed to the Dems and the GOP.

Bronco_Beerslug

07-03-2006, 01:21 PM

Every player that gets drafted has to work for that team - he can't play the teams against each other to get more money. Geeeezus! Since the draft is setup to keep ALL teams competitive, which it does, the league itself prospers which would not happen with a "free for all grab em". The players are not bound to play if they don't want to.

The Libertarians are about the only party that doesn't claim to know what's best for you - as opposed to the Dems and the GOP. BS, they claim just like everyone else, they know what's best for the people.

alkemical

07-03-2006, 01:21 PM

Says you but you won't find many people agreeing with that "idea". Anyone who thinks that 300 million people can exist without laws and government is ignorant IMO.
Don't you know, all party's believe that they know more than the "other" party.

Oh i agree - my anarchist leanings - i do know would not survive on a planet of animals that can't do more than what they are programmed for. 'Tis the reason i'm willing to comprimise and live by the foundations set by the constitution.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 01:26 PM

Geeeezus! Since the draft is setup to keep ALL teams competitive, which it does, the league itself prospers which would not happen with a "free for all grab em". The players are not bound to play if they don't want to.

The owners prosper at the expense of the players...

BS, they claim just like everyone else, they know what's best for the people.

And wrong again. Unless (as I suspect) you believe we don't know what's best for ourselves, and thus it's better if someone else decides for us.

Bronco_Beerslug

07-03-2006, 01:31 PM

The owners prosper at the expense of the players...No, they prosper at the expense of the fan who pays to watch the players (who make great sums of monies from the owners) play.

And wrong again. Unless (as I suspect) you believe we don't know what's best for ourselves, and thus it's better if someone else decides for us. No, wrong again because Libertarians have their own ideas, just like all other party's, on what is best for everyone else.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 01:41 PM

Every player that gets drafted has to work for that team - he can't play the teams against each other to get more money.

They chose to join the NFL company. They don't have to. They could play in Canada, they could play Arena or semi-pro. The chose the NFL, they follow those companies policies. They understand in advance that any team can draft them. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 01:42 PM

No, they prosper at the expense of the fan who pays to watch the players (who make great sums of monies from the owners) play.

Not just fans - taxpayers in cities and metro areas all over the country too.

No, wrong again because Libertarians have their own ideas, just like all other party's, on what is best for everyone else.

What's best is for you to decide, with the caveat that you can't keep someone else from deciding what's best for them. To claim that's the same thing as what the GOP and the Dems constantly inflict on us is just plain ridiculous.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 01:42 PM

Don't seem to be doing a good job now does it.

Give me an example....

W*GS

07-03-2006, 01:48 PM

They chose to join the NFL company. They don't have to. They could play in Canada, they could play Arena or semi-pro. The chose the NFL, they follow those companies policies. They understand in advance that any team can draft them. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign.

Wanting to play in the NFL isn't quite the same as wanting to be a grocery clerk. NFL players have to play for the team that has drafted them - Safeway doesn't have the same advantage over potential employees.

The NFL is specifically exempt from certain aspects of anti-trust legislation, anyway.

Bronco_Beerslug

07-03-2006, 01:53 PM

Not just fans - taxpayers in cities and metro areas all over the country too. What's the return for the community (ratio of taxes in to revenues created)?

What's best is for you to decide, with the caveat that you can't keep someone else from deciding what's best for them. To claim that's the same thing as what the GOP and the Dems constantly inflict on us is just plain ridiculous. Guess what, people can't decide to do whatever they feel like doing when a population numbers in the hundreds of millions. The reason why, because there are so many uneducated, ignorant, stupid and just plain idiots in large populations that laws and government have to be used for the best benefit of everyone. You choose to rail against (too much government and laws) by throwing away your voice while I choose to keep trying to get mine heard where it matters.

Wanting to play in the NFL isn't quite the same as wanting to be a grocery clerk. NFL players have to play for the team that has drafted them - Safeway doesn't have the same advantage over potential employees.I already pointed out you're wrong (they can go clerk at Safeway instead if they want to).

The NFL is specifically exempt from certain aspects of anti-trust legislation, anyway.
List them.

alkemical

07-03-2006, 01:58 PM

Give me an example....

I already did - BP got caught fixing the propane market. DIDN'T really prevent it, now did it.....

Or how about enron fixing the price supply for CA?

Maybe all the gas prices are fixed by the few major oil companies..... I mean, they do supress the stories of abiotic oil.....

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 02:00 PM

I already did - BP got caught fixing the propane market. DIDN'T really prevent it, now did it.....

Or how about enron fixing the price supply for CA?

Maybe all the gas prices are fixed by the few major oil companies..... I mean, they do supress the stories of abiotic oil.....

Well, the threat of punishment if caught is the only thing to prevent someone who is willfully trying to screw people over.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 02:00 PM

What's the return for the community (ratio of taxes in to revenues created)?

Taxpayer-financed sports arenas are a boon to owners - and return far less to their surrounding communities than they cost them. Ample economic analysis has proven that time and again.

Why do you think LA is still without an NFL team? Because LA makes a convenient scare tactic to use against taxpayers elsewhere that their beloved team might pack up and leave unless they get a shiny new stadium on the taxpayers' backs.

Guess what, people can't decide to do whatever they feel like doing when a population numbers in the hundreds of millions.

That's not what I said - why do you misstate it?

The reason why, because there are so many uneducated, ignorant, stupid and just plain idiots in large populations that laws and government have to be used for the best benefit of everyone.

You're not any of those things ("uneducated, ignorant, stupid") are you?

Elitism is so disgusting...

You choose to rail against (too much government and laws) by throwing away your voice while I choose to keep trying to get mine heard where it matters.

Your attempts have failed. I just wonder how someone can compromise and settle so readily. They've got your vote, and they don't give a damn what you want.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 02:04 PM

Wanting to play in the NFL isn't quite the same as wanting to be a grocery clerk. NFL players have to play for the team that has drafted them - Safeway doesn't have the same advantage over potential employees.

They don't have to play at all. Look at the NFL as one big company, with the shareholders being the owners of the teams. The company decided that the best way to allocate new employees was to give first rights to the teams that need the most help based on the previous season. Safeway, when hiring employees, typically hires for the areas that need the most help. If Safeway is all filled at clerk, you move on, or accept another role.

Pro athletes have a choice. They don't have to play.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 02:06 PM

Taxpayer-financed sports arenas are a boon to owners - and return far less to their surrounding communities than they cost them. Ample economic analysis has proven that time and again.

I ask this in all seriousness, was Coors Field (aka the house Elway Built) financed by the people?

W*GS

07-03-2006, 02:09 PM

I ask this in all seriousness, was Coors Field (aka the house Elway Built) financed by the people?

Coors Field is the Rockies' field, Invesco Field at Mile High is the Broncos' stadium.

Both were financed by metro Denver taxpayers, well over $500 million in total.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 02:18 PM

Coors Field is the Rockies' field, Invesco Field at Mile High is the Broncos' stadium.

Both were financed by metro Denver taxpayers, well over $500 million in total.

I know what the stadiums are. My reference to the "House Elway Built" is because of the belief that without the success of the Broncos and Elway, Denver would have never been considered a major enough market for MLB expansion. Elway brought the attention to Denver.

Anyway, the publicly funded Coors field completely changed downtown Denver. Old warehouses became luxury condos, empty fields became world class eateries and stores. The brew pubs, the night life, etc. All of that came about because of the revitalization of downtown. Pepsi Center near by, Invesco field, Elitches....

From my perspective, Coors field was the driving point. When the stadium sight was announced, my brother and I drove the the empty field at the corner of 20th and Blake and took a picture. My how things have changed.

I believe the area around Camden yards is anothe good example.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 02:36 PM

Check out

http://www.fieldofschemes.com

for an objective analysis of the value of taxpayer financing of sports facilities, especially for major league sports.

Bronco_Beerslug

07-03-2006, 02:59 PM

Check out

http://www.fieldofschemes.com

for an objective analysis of the value of taxpayer financing of sports facilities, especially for major league sports.

You didn't answer my question. What is the value to the community of partial taxpayer funded NFL stadiums?

Before you answer, make sure you include all the business they create (and taxes collected from them) for restaurants, real estate, etc...

Also you didn't answer my question of NFL antitrust exemptions, what are they?

W*GS

07-03-2006, 03:04 PM

You didn't answer my question. What is the value to the community of partial taxpayer funded NFL stadiums?

Check out the website.

Taxpayer-financed sports stadiums are a huge benefit to the team owners - they escape the multi-hundred-million-dollar (even over a billion on occassion) cost and reap almost all the revenue.

Before you answer, make sure you include all the business they create (and taxes collected from them) for restaurants, real estate, etc...

Small potatoes compared to the cost to taxpayers.

Why are you so in favor of corporate subsidy?

Also you didn't answer my question of NFL antitrust exemptions, what are they?

Google 'em.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 04:09 PM

Check out

http://www.fieldofschemes.com

for an objective analysis of the value of taxpayer financing of sports facilities, especially for major league sports.

Sure, the owners make more money off the facility, but you have to look at what it does to the area. Did Coors field change the landscape of downtown Denver? All of those businesses, condos, bars, etc were built around the stadium. Those were good for Denver, no?

This was a hotly debated topic here in NOLA for years. The Saints wanted a new facility on some land by the river, but they also wanted to surrounding land for development. The city basically said the stadium might be ok, but you can't have the land. Benson pouted.

The development around these stadiums is where you make some of the major dough. If a city does it right, it can be a windfall for all.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 04:24 PM

Sure, the owners make more money off the facility, but you have to look at what it does to the area. Did Coors field change the landscape of downtown Denver? All of those businesses, condos, bars, etc were built around the stadium. Those were good for Denver, no?

Not $400 million good, which is what Invesco cost the people who live in the stadium tax district, which is far larger than the few blocks around Coors Field. I live in the district, pay the taxes (for both) and benefit not one whit from either of them. Costs should be borne by few for the benefit of many, not borne by many for the benefit of the few.

The development around these stadiums is where you make some of the major dough. If a city does it right, it can be a windfall for all.

Not even close.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 05:26 PM

Not $400 million good, which is what Invesco cost the people who live in the stadium tax district, which is far larger than the few blocks around Coors Field. I live in the district, pay the taxes (for both) and benefit not one whit from either of them. Costs should be borne by few for the benefit of many, not borne by many for the benefit of the few.

Well, as a Broncos fan, it seems as though you did benefit, as your team still exists. Ask fans in Houston or Cleveland if they would agree now. Sure they got new teams, but at what cost?

You watch the Broncos on Sundays, do you pay to get in? I don't. My parents, who still live in Denver, realize that although they wouldn't be going to the stadium, their taxes were in a way, their financial payment for the right to watch the games. Now if you don't watch football, maybe you might have a bigger beef. Then again, if you don't watch football you are weird and should be shot.

I imagine, since Coors field was built, the LoDo area has had more than $400million of revenue generated through taxes for the city. $40 million a year is not a stretch.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 05:35 PM

Well, as a Broncos fan,

I'm not a Broncos fan - haven't been since Pat Bowlen scammed taxpayers out of that $400 million.

Besides, if the fans like the Broncos that much, then they should have been willing to pay an increase in ticket prices, or PPV-only games, to keep their beloved Broncos in Denver.

I imagine, since Coors field was built, the LoDo area has had more than $400 million of revenue generated through taxes for the city. $40 million a year is not a stretch.

You can imagine all you want, but reality doesn't accomodate you.

Besides, literally millions of people who paid (and are paying) the tax haven't benefited in the slightest. I haven't been to a single Rockies game, and have only passed through LoDo on a couple of occassions in the last 15-20 years. In any case, lots of corporations (which the Broncos are, remember) manage to get by without direct taxpayer subsidy. And lastly, when Bowlen sells the Broncos, will he give back to the taxpayers of the Denver metro area the net increase in wealth he's gotten from the new stadium we built for him and the sweetheart management and revenue deal he got? Unlikely.

Bowlen is a class-A parasite, and a lying fraud to boot.

NOLA Bronco

07-03-2006, 08:01 PM

I'm not a Broncos fan - haven't been since Pat Bowlen scammed taxpayers out of that $400 million.

Then why are you on this board?

Did the citizens vote to pay the tax for the stadium? Were they in favor of it? If the answers are Yes and Yes, then too bad. Blame your neighbors Mr. Grumpy.

If you don't think Denver has benefited from having these facilities and the revenue from the new downtown, then you are blind. Denver is no longer a little cow town, so they must act like a real city. You were probably one of the people against the new airport too. Progress means new and bigger and better. Denver is ahead of the curve of most major cities and their upgrades, which you should be thankful for, otherwise it would have cost you more.

W*GS

07-03-2006, 08:28 PM

Then why are you on this board?

I was invited.

Did the citizens vote to pay the tax for the stadium? Were they in favor of it? If the answers are Yes and Yes, then too bad. Blame your neighbors Mr. Grumpy.

The county in which I lived voted against it. Bowlen's 75:1 (IIRC) spending ratio, plus his barrage of lies and fraud, worked in his favor.

The bigger problem is that Bowlen sold us a bill of goods - we were told that without a new stadium, the Broncos would leave town (the usual blackmail tactics sports team owners use, re: LA still doesn't have an NFL team). The sad irony is that the Broncos are just as free to pack up and leave Denver now as they ever were - there's nothing in the contract between the MFSD (Metropolitan Football Stadium District) and the Broncos that makes it in any way difficult for Bowlen to take his property and go elsewhere.

If you don't think Denver has benefited from having these facilities and the revenue from the new downtown, then you are blind.

I don't live in Denver. Don't ever go to LoDo.

And many many other corporations have set up shop in various places around the metro area and benefitted their surroundings, without $400 million in corporate welfare.

Denver is no longer a little cow town, so they must act like a real city.

Meaning what? Cave to the extortionate tactics of multimillionaire sports team owners, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for their corporate entertainment palaces while they laugh all the way to the bank from overpriced tickets, sky-high concessions, and extremely lucrative stadium and arena management contracts? Or is it more important that Annabel Bowlen get yet more plastic surgery - because that stuff is damned expensive!

The Pepsi Center was built without corporate welfare; why couldn't Bowlen, ace businessman that he is, figure that out?

You were probably one of the people against the new airport too.

It's a pity it had to be built by the government - that's why it cost so much and was so late and overbudget. Airports ought to be privatized. There's no reason a municipal government has to run them.

Progress means new and bigger and better.

I'm not opposed to progress - I'm opposed to corporate welfare a la Invesco Field, and taxpayer subsidy of corporations.

Denver is ahead of the curve of most major cities and their upgrades, which you should be thankful for, otherwise it would have cost you more.

The implicit assumption being that local governments should be doing all the same things they've always done, despite the fact that most of the time, they manage to screw them up.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-04-2006, 04:23 AM

I'm not a Broncos fan - haven't been since Pat Bowlen scammed taxpayers out of that $400 million.

Then why are you on this board?

:troll:

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/7670/troll4alert7xp.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-14-2006, 02:34 AM

Nobel Economists: Republicans Wrong on Minimum Wage

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e164/bobgeiger/min_wage_history.jpg

With the buying power of the Federal minimum wage at its lowest point in 55 years, five Nobel Prize-winning economists have been joined by 650 of their peers, in calling on the Republican-led Congress to increase the minimum wage. Describing the last increase almost 10 years ago as now "fully eroded," the economists said that they agree with a report written in 1999 by the Council of Economic Advisors declaring that "modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment."

"We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed," the economists wrote in a paper delivered this week on a conference call hosted by the Economic Policy Institute, an economic research group based in Washington, D.C.

In addition to asserting that the real value of the minimum wage is at its lowest point since 1951, the economists also noted that the ratio of what a minimum-wage earner makes and the average pay rates of other hourly workers is at a significant low.

"The ratio of the minimum wage to the average hourly wage of non-supervisory workers is 31%, its lowest level since World War II," they said. " This decline is causing hardship for low-wage workers and their families."

The Federal minimum wage has been at $5.15 an hour since 1997, which puts a working American earning that wage, even laboring 50 hours a week, at below the national poverty line.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has been ferociously pursuing the issue for years and with particular fervor in the current Congress, which ends this year.

“These esteemed economists understand what everyone except the Republican leadership and the White House understand: an increase in the minimum wage is long overdue and would strengthen our economy," said Kennedy, in a statement Thursday. "Millions of American families are living in poverty while working hard for the American dream, while the Republicans block every effort to give them the raise they deserve --- despite skyrocketing increases in health care, gas prices, and education."

Nobel Prize winners calling on Republicans to raise the minimum wage are Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Joseph Stiglitz at Columbia University and Clive Granger of the University of California, San Diego.

The Republican leadership and the Bush administration have stubbornly held to the view that a higher minimum wage would lead to fewer jobs and more employers moving jobs offshore -- the latter, a ludicrous assumption, given that most minimum wage jobs are local, service-oriented positions that cannot be moved to another country.

The group of 650 economists shot down that notion, saying in their report that a Democratic plan to phase in a minimum wage increase to $7.25 "falls well within the range of options where the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy would be positive."

They also contradicted Republican claims that most people earning minimum wage are teenagers who don’t use the money for living essentials and bare subsistence.

"While controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families," the report says.

Republicans put forth a bogus plan to raise the minimum wage over the summer, when they attached it to a whopping Estate Tax cut for America's super rich, knowing that the legislation would fail, but providing them with a cynical way to tell voters that they had voted to improve the lot of working families.

Meanwhile, the GOP Congress has killed three attempts by Kennedy to raise the minimum wage in just the last two years on almost straight party-line votes and will undoubtedly keep doing that if allowed to remain in power after November 7.

Said Kennedy: "It is clear as day that despite what the economists advise, the only way these hard working people will get a new raise is if this Congress gets new management in November."

http://bobgeiger.com/