Minimum Wage Increase: They Never Talks About the SALES

[dblack]

Ok you really need to address this devaluing concept. What objective metric are you using? And again, what makes you so confident the employer is not paying someone less simply for the sake of profit?

The reason why there has always been a demand to raise it is because it is way behind on current inflation. Cost of living is an actual metric you know that right?

Isn't that interesting?

It's as if he almost gets it.

Yeah. It's wild. Even when they get them all lined up, they can't connect the dots.

 

[Billy000]

Lol you conservative have this fantasy qualitative reasoning about wages that is so laughable. Ok so your premise is that $15/h work is undermined by a boost in $2 in wages. I'm sorry, but how exactly do you define worth in this context? What are the defining characteristics exactly? Why are you so convinced that the job is worth that much? Don't you think it's possible that the employer keeps the wages low for the sake of, you know, more profit? They make more money paying people less you know that right? With this logic, it's kind of ridiculous to assume an employer pays wages based on an objective metric of worth. That's just retarded.

Here is food for thought. I know you cons struggle with with thought so chew slow. In this country, productivity has grown 100% since the 30's yet wages have remained flat. Don't you think productivity should be taken into account when it comes to deciding wages? Corporations haven't. Here is more food for thought: the last time someone could comfortably live off 10/h was the 1960's. Don't you think inflation should be taken into account for deciding wages? Corporations don't.

live comfortably off $10 bucks an hour? They do in South Carolina it is like the equivalent to making $50 bucks an hour in New York City

I seriously doubt that is true.

well considering I only pay $1.19 for a pack of smokes......

How much does it cost to rent a 3 bedroom house on 5 acres of land again in New York city?

$500 bucks down here....

Lol you are so dumb. Pennies on the dollar would rise while millions of people would make an couple extra hundred dollars a month. And no, not every price would rise. Not even close. Tell me, if you think it's so catastrophic, why did we raise the min wage so many times in the past with no problem.

Because statutory minimum wage ALWAYS fails to deliver.

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the statutory minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS contributes to unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

Lol you conservative have this fantasy qualitative reasoning about wages that is so laughable. Ok so your premise is that $15/h work is undermined by a boost in $2 in wages. I'm sorry, but how exactly do you define worth in this context? What are the defining characteristics exactly? Why are you so convinced that the job is worth that much?

I don't. I literally do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think it's possible that the employer keeps the wages low for the sake of, you know, more profit?

Also I believe employees demand demand higher wages for the sake of their own profit. What's your point?

They make more money paying people less you know that right? With this logic, it's kind of ridiculous to assume an employer pays wages based on an objective metric of worth. That's just retarded.

What's retarded is this notion of yours that you can achieve any kind of wage justice by ignoring well established economic principles by applying magical legislation.

Here is food for thought. I know you cons struggle with with thought so chew slow. In this country, productivity has grown 100% since the 30's yet wages have remained flat. Don't you think productivity should be taken into account when it comes to deciding wages?

Maybe. Productivity in worthless product might be up a bajillion %, but I don't think that demands higher wages. I don't know.

I'll tell you this though: I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Corporations haven't.

Made up nonsense.

Here is more food for thought: the last time someone could comfortably live off 10/h was the 1960's. Don't you think inflation should be taken into account for deciding wages? Corporations don't.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

Ok you really need to address this devaluing concept.

You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

What objective metric are you using?

Math. $1 is less than $15.

And again, what makes you so confident the employer is not paying someone less simply for the sake of profit?

I made no such statement of "confidence." In fact, I wouldn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

BTW, for everyone's benefit; On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

The reason why there has always been a demand to raise it is because it is way behind on current inflation.

It ALWAYS will be. Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

Cost of living is an actual metric you know that right?

Yes, but so what?

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Ok you haven't answered the question. I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage. You're talking about a qualitative idea when it should be quantitative. What does it matter if the government raises the mimimum wage? What quantitative reasoning are they violating? Wages have remained flat while productivity has soared. Do you honestly think employers, by and large, are less concerned by profit and more concerned by paying their workers fairly and realistically? 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15 per hour which is the wage someone must be able to live off of based on current inflation?

Prices will go up slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the extra few hundred bucks a month a person will make. Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

 

[dblack]

Ok you haven't answered the question. I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage...

There is no such metric. Which is part of why minimum wage laws are such a conceit. Value and worth are entirely subjective judgements. How much something is worth is up to the person paying for it. Period. And every person in every different situation will have a different calculus for making that call.

 

[LOki]

live comfortably off $10 bucks an hour? They do in South Carolina it is like the equivalent to making $50 bucks an hour in New York City

I seriously doubt that is true.

well considering I only pay $1.19 for a pack of smokes......

How much does it cost to rent a 3 bedroom house on 5 acres of land again in New York city?

$500 bucks down here....

Because statutory minimum wage ALWAYS fails to deliver.

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the statutory minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS contributes to unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

Lol you conservative have this fantasy qualitative reasoning about wages that is so laughable. Ok so your premise is that $15/h work is undermined by a boost in $2 in wages. I'm sorry, but how exactly do you define worth in this context? What are the defining characteristics exactly? Why are you so convinced that the job is worth that much?

I don't. I literally do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think it's possible that the employer keeps the wages low for the sake of, you know, more profit?

Also I believe employees demand demand higher wages for the sake of their own profit. What's your point?

They make more money paying people less you know that right? With this logic, it's kind of ridiculous to assume an employer pays wages based on an objective metric of worth. That's just retarded.

What's retarded is this notion of yours that you can achieve any kind of wage justice by ignoring well established economic principles by applying magical legislation.

Here is food for thought. I know you cons struggle with with thought so chew slow. In this country, productivity has grown 100% since the 30's yet wages have remained flat. Don't you think productivity should be taken into account when it comes to deciding wages?

Maybe. Productivity in worthless product might be up a bajillion %, but I don't think that demands higher wages. I don't know.

I'll tell you this though: I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Corporations haven't.

Made up nonsense.

Here is more food for thought: the last time someone could comfortably live off 10/h was the 1960's. Don't you think inflation should be taken into account for deciding wages? Corporations don't.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

Ok you really need to address this devaluing concept.

You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

What objective metric are you using?

Math. $1 is less than $15.

And again, what makes you so confident the employer is not paying someone less simply for the sake of profit?

I made no such statement of "confidence." In fact, I wouldn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

BTW, for everyone's benefit; On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

The reason why there has always been a demand to raise it is because it is way behind on current inflation.

It ALWAYS will be. Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

Cost of living is an actual metric you know that right?

Yes, but so what?

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Ok you haven't answered the question.

I have. I'm not a pussy.

I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

You're talking about a qualitative idea when it should be quantitative.

Nonsense.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the question posed: What is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

But if making it quantitative is what you need, 5. The worker's work is worth the quantity 5.

Can you answer it now?

What does it matter if the government raises the mimimum wage?

Besides everything that's been explained to you?

You're just going to be obtuse, is it? Fine.

The government is not competent to set wages. Evidenced by the undeniable fact of reality that it arbitrarily sets the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

How's that for a problem?

What quantitative reasoning are they violating?

How about the undeniable fact of reality that they arbitrarily set the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

Is that quantitative enough for you, Cupcake?

Wages have remained flat while productivity has soared.

Of course. That's what will happen when work worth more than the statutory minimum wage must subsidize the work worth less than the ever rising statutory minimum.

Do you honestly think employers, by and large, are less concerned by profit and more concerned by paying their workers fairly and realistically?

Do you honestly think employees, by and large, are less concerned with collecting as much cash with the least effort as possible, and more concerned with treating their employers fairly and realistically?

Who cares? It is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question, which is: What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour.

So what?

How many more do you think make less than $15 per hour which is the wage someone must be able to live off of based on current inflation?

Do you want my honest answer to this mawkish appeal to emotion?

I DON'T KNOW. IT IS OF NO CONCERN TO ME. SO WHAT?

Prices will go up slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the extra few hundred bucks a month a person will make. Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

If this were at all true, it would have worked the first time.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

 

[Billy000]

I seriously doubt that is true.

well considering I only pay $1.19 for a pack of smokes......

How much does it cost to rent a 3 bedroom house on 5 acres of land again in New York city?

$500 bucks down here....

Lol you conservative have this fantasy qualitative reasoning about wages that is so laughable. Ok so your premise is that $15/h work is undermined by a boost in $2 in wages. I'm sorry, but how exactly do you define worth in this context? What are the defining characteristics exactly? Why are you so convinced that the job is worth that much?

I don't. I literally do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think it's possible that the employer keeps the wages low for the sake of, you know, more profit?

Also I believe employees demand demand higher wages for the sake of their own profit. What's your point?

They make more money paying people less you know that right? With this logic, it's kind of ridiculous to assume an employer pays wages based on an objective metric of worth. That's just retarded.

What's retarded is this notion of yours that you can achieve any kind of wage justice by ignoring well established economic principles by applying magical legislation.

Here is food for thought. I know you cons struggle with with thought so chew slow. In this country, productivity has grown 100% since the 30's yet wages have remained flat. Don't you think productivity should be taken into account when it comes to deciding wages?

Maybe. Productivity in worthless product might be up a bajillion %, but I don't think that demands higher wages. I don't know.

I'll tell you this though: I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Corporations haven't.

Made up nonsense.

Here is more food for thought: the last time someone could comfortably live off 10/h was the 1960's. Don't you think inflation should be taken into account for deciding wages? Corporations don't.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

Ok you really need to address this devaluing concept.

You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

What objective metric are you using?

Math. $1 is less than $15.

And again, what makes you so confident the employer is not paying someone less simply for the sake of profit?

I made no such statement of "confidence." In fact, I wouldn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

BTW, for everyone's benefit; On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

The reason why there has always been a demand to raise it is because it is way behind on current inflation.

It ALWAYS will be. Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

Cost of living is an actual metric you know that right?

Yes, but so what?

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Ok you haven't answered the question.

I have. I'm not a pussy.

I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

You're talking about a qualitative idea when it should be quantitative.

Nonsense.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the question posed: What is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

But if making it quantitative is what you need, 5. The worker's work is worth the quantity 5.

Can you answer it now?

What does it matter if the government raises the mimimum wage?

Besides everything that's been explained to you?

You're just going to be obtuse, is it? Fine.

The government is not competent to set wages. Evidenced by the undeniable fact of reality that it arbitrarily sets the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

How's that for a problem?

What quantitative reasoning are they violating?

How about the undeniable fact of reality that they arbitrarily set the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

Is that quantitative enough for you, Cupcake?

Wages have remained flat while productivity has soared.

Of course. That's what will happen when work worth more than the statutory minimum wage must subsidize the work worth less than the statutory minimum.

Do you honestly think employers, by and large, are less concerned by profit and more concerned by paying their workers fairly and realistically?

Do you honestly think employees, by and large, are less concerned with collecting as much cash with the least effort as possible, and more concerned with treating their employers fairly and realistically?

Who cares? It is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question, which is: What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour.

So what?

How many more do you think make less than $15 per hour which is the wage someone must be able to live off of based on current inflation?

Do you want my honest answer to this mawkish appeal to emotion?

SO WHAT?

Prices will go up slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the extra few hundred bucks a month a person will make. Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

If this were at all true, it would have worked the first time.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity. You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth. Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment? Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage. The US has the widest income gap in the world. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

Yes, no.

 

[Billy000]

Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

LOL!

Lol it's amazing how you cons think you understand economics but in realiity you dont know jack shit. 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending.

 

[LOki]

well considering I only pay $1.19 for a pack of smokes......

How much does it cost to rent a 3 bedroom house on 5 acres of land again in New York city?

$500 bucks down here....

I don't. I literally do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Also I believe employees demand demand higher wages for the sake of their own profit. What's your point?

What's retarded is this notion of yours that you can achieve any kind of wage justice by ignoring well established economic principles by applying magical legislation.

Maybe. Productivity in worthless product might be up a bajillion %, but I don't think that demands higher wages. I don't know.

I'll tell you this though: I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Made up nonsense.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

Ok you really need to address this devaluing concept.

You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

What objective metric are you using?

Math. $1 is less than $15.

And again, what makes you so confident the employer is not paying someone less simply for the sake of profit?

I made no such statement of "confidence." In fact, I wouldn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

BTW, for everyone's benefit; On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

The reason why there has always been a demand to raise it is because it is way behind on current inflation.

It ALWAYS will be. Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

Cost of living is an actual metric you know that right?

Yes, but so what?

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Ok you haven't answered the question.

I have. I'm not a pussy.

I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

You're talking about a qualitative idea when it should be quantitative.

Nonsense.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the question posed: What is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

But if making it quantitative is what you need, 5. The worker's work is worth the quantity 5.

Can you answer it now?

What does it matter if the government raises the mimimum wage?

Besides everything that's been explained to you?

You're just going to be obtuse, is it? Fine.

The government is not competent to set wages. Evidenced by the undeniable fact of reality that it arbitrarily sets the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

How's that for a problem?

What quantitative reasoning are they violating?

How about the undeniable fact of reality that they arbitrarily set the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

Is that quantitative enough for you, Cupcake?

Wages have remained flat while productivity has soared.

Of course. That's what will happen when work worth more than the statutory minimum wage must subsidize the work worth less than the statutory minimum.

Do you honestly think employers, by and large, are less concerned by profit and more concerned by paying their workers fairly and realistically?

Do you honestly think employees, by and large, are less concerned with collecting as much cash with the least effort as possible, and more concerned with treating their employers fairly and realistically?

Who cares? It is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question, which is: What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour.

So what?

How many more do you think make less than $15 per hour which is the wage someone must be able to live off of based on current inflation?

Do you want my honest answer to this mawkish appeal to emotion?

SO WHAT?

Prices will go up slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the extra few hundred bucks a month a person will make. Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

If this were at all true, it would have worked the first time.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

The US has the widest income gap in the world.

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Corporate profits are at an all time high.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

 

[Billy000]

Ok you really need to address this devaluing concept.

You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

What objective metric are you using?

Math. $1 is less than $15.

And again, what makes you so confident the employer is not paying someone less simply for the sake of profit?

I made no such statement of "confidence." In fact, I wouldn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

BTW, for everyone's benefit; On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

The reason why there has always been a demand to raise it is because it is way behind on current inflation.

It ALWAYS will be. Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

Cost of living is an actual metric you know that right?

Yes, but so what?

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Ok you haven't answered the question.

I have. I'm not a pussy.

I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

You're talking about a qualitative idea when it should be quantitative.

Nonsense.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the question posed: What is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

But if making it quantitative is what you need, 5. The worker's work is worth the quantity 5.

Can you answer it now?

What does it matter if the government raises the mimimum wage?

Besides everything that's been explained to you?

You're just going to be obtuse, is it? Fine.

The government is not competent to set wages. Evidenced by the undeniable fact of reality that it arbitrarily sets the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

How's that for a problem?

What quantitative reasoning are they violating?

How about the undeniable fact of reality that they arbitrarily set the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

Is that quantitative enough for you, Cupcake?

Wages have remained flat while productivity has soared.

Of course. That's what will happen when work worth more than the statutory minimum wage must subsidize the work worth less than the statutory minimum.

Do you honestly think employers, by and large, are less concerned by profit and more concerned by paying their workers fairly and realistically?

Do you honestly think employees, by and large, are less concerned with collecting as much cash with the least effort as possible, and more concerned with treating their employers fairly and realistically?

Who cares? It is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question, which is: What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour.

So what?

How many more do you think make less than $15 per hour which is the wage someone must be able to live off of based on current inflation?

Do you want my honest answer to this mawkish appeal to emotion?

SO WHAT?

Prices will go up slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the extra few hundred bucks a month a person will make. Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

If this were at all true, it would have worked the first time.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

The US has the widest income gap in the world.

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Corporate profits are at an all time high.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country. We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world. Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

 

[LOki]

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Math. $1 is less than $15.

I made no such statement of "confidence." In fact, I wouldn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

BTW, for everyone's benefit; On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

It ALWAYS will be. Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS results in inflation. It necessarily must.

Yes, but so what?

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Ok you haven't answered the question.

I have. I'm not a pussy.

I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

You're talking about a qualitative idea when it should be quantitative.

Nonsense.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the question posed: What is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

But if making it quantitative is what you need, 5. The worker's work is worth the quantity 5.

Can you answer it now?

What does it matter if the government raises the mimimum wage?

Besides everything that's been explained to you?

You're just going to be obtuse, is it? Fine.

The government is not competent to set wages. Evidenced by the undeniable fact of reality that it arbitrarily sets the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

How's that for a problem?

What quantitative reasoning are they violating?

How about the undeniable fact of reality that they arbitrarily set the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

Is that quantitative enough for you, Cupcake?

Wages have remained flat while productivity has soared.

Of course. That's what will happen when work worth more than the statutory minimum wage must subsidize the work worth less than the statutory minimum.

Do you honestly think employers, by and large, are less concerned by profit and more concerned by paying their workers fairly and realistically?

Do you honestly think employees, by and large, are less concerned with collecting as much cash with the least effort as possible, and more concerned with treating their employers fairly and realistically?

Who cares? It is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question, which is: What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour.

So what?

How many more do you think make less than $15 per hour which is the wage someone must be able to live off of based on current inflation?

Do you want my honest answer to this mawkish appeal to emotion?

SO WHAT?

Prices will go up slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the extra few hundred bucks a month a person will make. Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

If this were at all true, it would have worked the first time.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

The US has the widest income gap in the world.

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Corporate profits are at an all time high.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

 

[Billy000]

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

Ok you haven't answered the question.

I have. I'm not a pussy.

I am asking for the metric you are using to decide what work is worth what wage.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

You're talking about a qualitative idea when it should be quantitative.

Nonsense.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the question posed: What is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

But if making it quantitative is what you need, 5. The worker's work is worth the quantity 5.

Can you answer it now?

What does it matter if the government raises the mimimum wage?

Besides everything that's been explained to you?

You're just going to be obtuse, is it? Fine.

The government is not competent to set wages. Evidenced by the undeniable fact of reality that it arbitrarily sets the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

How's that for a problem?

What quantitative reasoning are they violating?

How about the undeniable fact of reality that they arbitrarily set the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

Is that quantitative enough for you, Cupcake?

Wages have remained flat while productivity has soared.

Of course. That's what will happen when work worth more than the statutory minimum wage must subsidize the work worth less than the statutory minimum.

Do you honestly think employers, by and large, are less concerned by profit and more concerned by paying their workers fairly and realistically?

Do you honestly think employees, by and large, are less concerned with collecting as much cash with the least effort as possible, and more concerned with treating their employers fairly and realistically?

Who cares? It is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question, which is: What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour.

So what?

How many more do you think make less than $15 per hour which is the wage someone must be able to live off of based on current inflation?

Do you want my honest answer to this mawkish appeal to emotion?

SO WHAT?

Prices will go up slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the extra few hundred bucks a month a person will make. Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

If this were at all true, it would have worked the first time.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

The US has the widest income gap in the world.

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Corporate profits are at an all time high.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

 

[LOki]

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

I have. I'm not a pussy.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Nonsense.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the question posed: What is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

But if making it quantitative is what you need, 5. The worker's work is worth the quantity 5.

Can you answer it now?

Besides everything that's been explained to you?

You're just going to be obtuse, is it? Fine.

The government is not competent to set wages. Evidenced by the undeniable fact of reality that it arbitrarily sets the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

How's that for a problem?

How about the undeniable fact of reality that they arbitrarily set the wage for work worth $1/hr at $7.25/hr.

Is that quantitative enough for you, Cupcake?

Of course. That's what will happen when work worth more than the statutory minimum wage must subsidize the work worth less than the statutory minimum.

Do you honestly think employees, by and large, are less concerned with collecting as much cash with the least effort as possible, and more concerned with treating their employers fairly and realistically?

Who cares? It is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question, which is: What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

So what?

Do you want my honest answer to this mawkish appeal to emotion?

SO WHAT?

If this were at all true, it would have worked the first time.

If statutory minimum wage did not ALWAYS fail--if it did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not ALWAYS be demanding that the statutory minimum wage be increased... yet again!

What is your objection to simply basing was worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

The US has the widest income gap in the world.

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Corporate profits are at an all time high.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

I did not ask what you thought one's worth is based upon. So again, you just pretend that I didn't ask:

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth.​

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

I'm keeping no one in poverty...plain and simple. Statutory minimum wage simp!y cannot address poverty, and is a primary tool for instituting and expanding poverty by all the means presented that you have chosen to ignore, as you continue to make these appeals to emotion.

And, no one missed the fact that you once again carefully avoided answering this question posed to you:

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?
​

Why do you always do that, Cupcake?

 

[Billy000]

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

The US has the widest income gap in the world.

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Corporate profits are at an all time high.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

I did not ask what you thought one's worth is based upon. So again, you just pretend that I didn't ask:

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth.​

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

I'm keeping no one in poverty...plain and simple. Statutory minimum wage simp!y cannot address poverty, and is a primary tool for instituting and expanding poverty by all the means presented that you have chosen to ignore, as you continue to make these appeals to emotion.

And, no one missed the fact that you once again carefully avoided answering this question posed to you:

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?
​

Why do you always do that, Cupcake?

You and I both know you are asking a question with a false premise. We already agree that wages should be based on worth. The obvious point I am making is that wages are currently not based on worth. How hard is it for you to understand that?

Your second question is equally stupid. How do you not see the hypocrisy in it? You claim that I claim to have a "moral authority" over deciding wages. Even if I did believe in having this "moral authority", you wouldn't have any moral authority to decide this issue either now would you? We are both expressing opinions. Of course the difference between you and me is that my opinion is guided by actual factual information.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

LOL!

Lol it's amazing how you cons think you understand economics but in realiity you dont know jack shit. 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending.

How much is driven by business spending and business payroll?

 

[Billy000]

Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

LOL!

Lol it's amazing how you cons think you understand economics but in realiity you dont know jack shit. 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending.

How much is driven by business spending and business payroll?

What is 100-70?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over time, that huge boost to consumer spending will improve the economy.

LOL!

Lol it's amazing how you cons think you understand economics but in realiity you dont know jack shit. 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending.

How much is driven by business spending and business payroll?

What is 100-70?

Your IQ, but back to my question.

 

[LOki]

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

I did not ask what you thought one's worth is based upon. So again, you just pretend that I didn't ask:

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth.​

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

I'm keeping no one in poverty...plain and simple. Statutory minimum wage simp!y cannot address poverty, and is a primary tool for instituting and expanding poverty by all the means presented that you have chosen to ignore, as you continue to make these appeals to emotion.

And, no one missed the fact that you once again carefully avoided answering this question posed to you:

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?
​

Why do you always do that, Cupcake?

You and I both know you are asking a question with a false premise.

Yet despite this OBVIOUS opportunity, you can't identify this false premise.

Why is that, Cupcake?

We already agree that wages should be based on worth.

Nonsense. You're a proponent for statutory minimum wage; you think wages should be based upon something established through legislative fiat.

There's no other conclusion, Pumpkin.

The obvious point I am making is that wages are currently not based on worth. How hard is it for you to understand that?

I understand it entirely. What have I said to make you think otherwise? Why do you think I'm opposed to statutory minimum wage?

Your second question is equally stupid.

Yet asking it is so very revealing.

How do you not see the hypocrisy in it?

Because there is no hypocrisy in it. That's how.

Exactly.

You claim that I claim to have a "moral authority" over deciding wages.

And you do. You're a statutory minimum wage proponent. It is a necessary conclusion.

Even if I did believe in having this "moral authority", you wouldn't have any moral authority to decide this issue either now would you?

Of course. That is why I explicitly told you on more than one occasion that I do not make such claims to moral authority. But you know that.

Your "confusion" about this is deliberate; isn't it, Cupcake?

We are both expressing opinions. Of course the difference between you and me is that my opinion is guided by actual factual information.

This is nonsense. Your opinion is guided ENTIRELY by emotion, and actively avoids actual factual information.

 

[Billy000]

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

Lol I keep telling you that I am taking into account their worth: productivity.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

You on the other hand have failed to define what their work is worth.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity and the cost of living in their environment?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Neither one of those have been taken junto account when it comes to the minimum wage.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

The US has the widest income gap in the world.

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Corporate profits are at an all time high.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Yes, it is time for the government to step in.

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

I did not ask what you thought wages were based upon. So again, you just pretend that I didn't ask:

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth.​

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

I'm keeping no one in poverty...plain and simple. Statutory minimum wage simp!y cannot address poverty, and is a primary tool for instituting and expanding poverty by all the means presented that you have chosen to ignore, as you continue to make these appeals to emotion.

And, no one missed the fact that you once again carefully avoided answering this question posed to you:

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?
​

Why do you do that, Cupcake?

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

I did not ask what you thought one's worth is based upon. So again, you just pretend that I didn't ask:

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth.​

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

I'm keeping no one in poverty...plain and simple. Statutory minimum wage simp!y cannot address poverty, and is a primary tool for instituting and expanding poverty by all the means presented that you have chosen to ignore, as you continue to make these appeals to emotion.

And, no one missed the fact that you once again carefully avoided answering this question posed to you:

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?
​

Why do you always do that, Cupcake?

You and I both know you are asking a question with a false premise.

Yet despite this OBVIOUS opportunity, you can't identify this false premise.

Why is that, Cupcake?

We already agree that wages should be based on worth.

Nonsense. You're a proponent for statutory minimum wage; you think wages should be based upon something established through legislative fiat.

There's no other conclusion, Pumpkin.

The obvious point I am making is that wages are currently not based on worth. How hard is it for you to understand that?

I understand it entirely. What have I said to make you think otherwise? Why do you think I'm opposed to statutory minimum wage?

Your second question is equally stupid.

Yet asking it is so very revealing.

How do you not see the hypocrisy in it?

Because there is no hypocrisy in it. That's how.

Exactly.

You claim that I claim to have a "moral authority" over deciding wages.

And you do. You're a statutory minimum wage proponent. It is a necessary conclusion.

Even if I did believe in having this "moral authority", you wouldn't have any moral authority to decide this issue either now would you?

Of course. That is why I explicitly told you on more than one occasion that I do not make such claims to moral authority. But you know that.

Your "confusion" about this is deliberate; isn't it, Cupcake?

We are both expressing opinions. Of course the difference between you and me is that my opinion is guided by actual factual information.

This is nonsense. Your opinion is guided ENTIRELY by emotion, and actively avoids actual factual information.

Lol I know you think you are making some kind of argument by responding to my posts sentence by sentence but you come across like an idiot. Usually it takes more than one sentence to make one point. You know that right?

I don't understand why you are harping on this "moral authority" bullshit. I have never claimed to have such a thing. Hell at this point I'm not sure even you know what you are saying. What are you even talking about?

Oh and i know calling me "cupcake" is meant to sound condescending for the sake of making it seem like you are winning this argument, but you really just come across laughable.

 

[LOki]

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

Serious question. Answer it.

I do not assert that I have the moral authority to decide for other people what their work is worth... whether we're talking about the work being done, or the work that needs to be done.

On what moral authority do you decide worth for other people?

No. Productivity may inform worth but it's not the same thing. Cost of living informs what a worker needs, but not what his work is worth.

As far as pay is concerned, a worker's need places NO OBLIGATION upon the employer.

Of course not. SO WHAT?

And our poor are still some of the richest people in the world.

Your appeals to emotion are meaningless.

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

More appeal to emotion. SO WHAT?

Based upon what, exactly? Your mawkish appeals to emotion? I think not.

The government is incompetent to "step in." A fact demonstrated quantitatively just for you, and you obtuseley ignored.

Why don't you finally explain to us what your precise objection is to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth?

lol so essentially your argument has turned into a ridiculous assertion that I am "appealing to emotion" despite giving you objective facts about flat wages, productivity, cost of living, and inflation.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

And you're wrong about the well being of the poor in this country.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

We have the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Our middle class is also lagging behind that of other nations.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

I did not ask what you thought wages were based upon. So again, you just pretend that I didn't ask:

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth.​

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

I'm keeping no one in poverty...plain and simple. Statutory minimum wage simp!y cannot address poverty, and is a primary tool for instituting and expanding poverty by all the means presented that you have chosen to ignore, as you continue to make these appeals to emotion.

And, no one missed the fact that you once again carefully avoided answering this question posed to you:

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?
​

Why do you do that, Cupcake?

You're just embarrassed to make a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions.

I'm no pussy, so I'll continue to answer yours.

Objective facts or otherwise, you're still just making appeals to emotion... they aren't valid arguments. And my assertion to that effect is not ridiculous... you are.

Sorry about you luck, I'm entirely correct.

But not the whole world. Someone on somebody's list of "developed" countries has to be last, but that does not invalidate my assertion.

Not really... but feel free to engineer your own exclusive list that demonstrates me wrong.

You're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?

How many goddamn times do I have to explain to you that one's worth should be based on productivity. In other words, wages ARE NOT being determined by worth.

I did not ask what you thought one's worth is based upon. So again, you just pretend that I didn't ask:

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wages upon what that worker's work is worth.​

What moral authority do you have to keep people in poverty? This is what this issue boils down to. Plain and simple. Based on morality, the minimum wage must be raised.

I'm keeping no one in poverty...plain and simple. Statutory minimum wage simp!y cannot address poverty, and is a primary tool for instituting and expanding poverty by all the means presented that you have chosen to ignore, as you continue to make these appeals to emotion.

And, no one missed the fact that you once again carefully avoided answering this question posed to you:

On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?
​

Why do you always do that, Cupcake?

You and I both know you are asking a question with a false premise.

Yet despite this OBVIOUS opportunity, you can't identify this false premise.

Why is that, Cupcake?

We already agree that wages should be based on worth.

Nonsense. You're a proponent for statutory minimum wage; you think wages should be based upon something established through legislative fiat.

There's no other conclusion, Pumpkin.

The obvious point I am making is that wages are currently not based on worth. How hard is it for you to understand that?

I understand it entirely. What have I said to make you think otherwise? Why do you think I'm opposed to statutory minimum wage?

Your second question is equally stupid.

Yet asking it is so very revealing.

How do you not see the hypocrisy in it?

Because there is no hypocrisy in it. That's how.

Exactly.

You claim that I claim to have a "moral authority" over deciding wages.

And you do. You're a statutory minimum wage proponent. It is a necessary conclusion.

Even if I did believe in having this "moral authority", you wouldn't have any moral authority to decide this issue either now would you?

Of course. That is why I explicitly told you on more than one occasion that I do not make such claims to moral authority. But you know that.

Your "confusion" about this is deliberate; isn't it, Cupcake?

We are both expressing opinions. Of course the difference between you and me is that my opinion is guided by actual factual information.

This is nonsense. Your opinion is guided ENTIRELY by emotion, and actively avoids actual factual information.

Lol I know you think you are making some kind of argument by responding to my posts sentence by sentence but you come across like an idiot. Usually it takes more than one sentence to make one point. You know that right?

You object because I address every point you make, specifically. And you end up being the idiot.

You cannot accuse me of not addressing your points or answering your questions.

Your failures make you come off as a coward. And disingenuous. Appropriately.

I don't understand why you are harping on this "moral authority" bullshit. I have never claimed to have such a thing.

Yet you feel free to exercise that authority EVERY TIME you declare work is worth no less than $X.00/hr.

I'd like to know how you came by such authority.

Hell at this point I'm not sure even you know what you are saying. What are you even talking about?

Well, that's an obvious lie.

Oh and i know calling me "cupcake" is meant to sound condescending for the sake of making it seem like you are winning this argument, but you really just come across laughable.

You've had your ass handed to you, Cupcake.

Oh, and you're still a pussy for avoiding these valid questions asked of you:

1. What is your objection to simply basing a worker's wages upon what their work is worth?
2. On what moral authority do you determine worth for everybody else?