What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[Rshermr]

Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time. As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

Still waiting for you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue. Lie?

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems. With no proof.
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1. Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. They are not "their" economic system.
2. Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3. Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.
4. Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting. But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked. Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe. For others, truth is what can be proven.
5. I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly. Ever. I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not. You simply, me boy, imagine it.


Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll. So you are unaffected by the truth.


See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence. See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing. And you have no integrity.

.

Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems.

The left has no economic system? LOL!
Nope, me boy. They are lucky to have a few bucks. Countries have economic systems. Students do not. Maybe you are too stupid for econ classes.

Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems

On the one hand, Communism, on the other hand, capitalism. LOL!
Correct, me con troll. Both have good and bad points. But name the communist nation you have in mind, dipshit. Or do you want to discuss the system in general. Texts and econ profs I have known talk about strengths and weaknesses of systems. But failures of particular nations economies. Which were seldom pure anything. Certainly not pure communist, And certainly not pure capitalist.
I suspect this is too complex for you.

But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked,

Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.
1. Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2. Equality within the society.

But, here is the thing, me poor ignorant con, all you have to do is google the question. Pay me, and I will write you a short thesis.


Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern.

Besides curling up in a ball and looking for their safe space.......
Ah, more con talking points. Again no use of facts. Must be cool to be able to believe anything you want.

So you are unaffected by the truth.

I'm unaffected by the lies of the left.
Name the organizations putting out left leaning lies. There are over 100 well financed "think tanks" doing that for the right. Just a few from the left. Which is why, I suspect, you expect lies from the left. Truth is, lies from the left are few, from the right enormous.
So, as I mentioned and you prove, to a con, the truth is what they want to believe, and what they are told.

I keep having to try to educate you.

But you're so dumb. And so wrong.
I appreciate that. I long since learned to consider the source, and you are the source, so I must be smart and correct.

You do not look at evidence.

I do. And it shows me the left lies. It's what they do best.
Sure you do. Me poor ignorant con troll, you are a con. By definition, you lie constantly. You have no integrity. You lack class. And you believe what you are told to believe. So you project, believing everyone lies. They don't, me boy. Those that are not cons often have integrity, and value honesty, and class. Different world from that of the con troll.

Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?

My bet is that you do not. Hehe.
Not my claim. Must be yours, me con troll. You are bad at discussion. The texts I have used do not point to the failures or lefties or righties. Stupid statement.

Thanks for proving you know nothing at all of economics higher education. But you are truly convinced of what you have been told to believe. Sad.

 

[Oldstyle]

If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.

He wrote just one. Not well received, except in right wing circles. Here is a comment or two.
Responding to the question would you recommend Sowells text, the response was a list of other texts and the following in response to Sowell's text:

"I would say no. A strong and resounding "NO!"
Perhaps if you are looking for a primer on American libertarianism, it's not bad, though Rothbard is perhaps more cited.
But for an unbiased intro to economics, you would be better served by a book written by a mainstream or at least professional economist."
Is the book 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell a decent primer of the study? Will his obvious resent for non-capitalist systems interfere at all? • /r/AskSocialScience

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable. There are good texts, and there are those that fall short. This one falls short, according to the multiple reviews out there.

Thomas Sowell wrote one text on economics? You're so ignorant sometimes it's amusing.

Sowell has written 59 books to date. Ten of them deal specifically with economics.

If you would READ Sowell, Rshermr...you'd be much better at pretending to be an economist! Just saying...

 

[Oldstyle]

Raising the.min wage HISTORICALLY damages the.middle.class, by devaluing their work, and.making it almost impossible to start a business.

Can you explain. Can you provide you provide proof? I think you are simply pushing dogma, with no truth at all.

Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers



One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Thomas Sowell, "Minimum Wage Madness," September 17,

Thomas Sowell is a econ prof who brags that he is a libertarian, who can not name a single successful libertarian nation, or libertarian economy. He is a close associate of the Koch brothers and their think tank, CATO. If you want a total lack of integrity, read Sowell. Known by economists as a bought and paid for clown.
But what would you expect from ed, who is himself a self admitted Libertarian, also looking for a successful libertarian economy. Poor ignorant clown.

Posting lies about the facts of minimum wage is what con trolls do All six points untrue. And the source is totally partial, a true con troll. But what would you expect of ed?

Thomas Sowell is a well respected economist who came out of college believing that communism was the best political system in existence only to change his mind when he saw what big government policies did to the sugar cane industry and it's workers in Puerto Rico. Thomas Sowell is a libertarian because he saw for himself that government isn't always the answer and often times it becomes the problem.

I was fortunate to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor when he taught one year at Amherst College. He was one of the best professors I had when I was in college. Knee jerk progressives like you, Rshermr...hate people like Sowell because they deal in reality rather than pie in the sky liberal theory.

So, you admit sowell was stupid enough to believe that communism, an economic system that never had a chance of survival, was the best. So, he started believing in communism, then changed to libertarianism, the other economic system that never had a chance of making it. Communism never succeeded, and today only a very few poor countries call themselves communist. Shows Sowell's ignorance. Then, he goes on to support an economic system even more a failure. Libertarianism, which has never succeeded in the history of the world. Great.

Relative to pie in the sky, that would be anyone who believes in Libertarianism. You see, liberal theory exists, whether you believe in it or not. Libertarianism is a dream. By nut cases who do not want to look at economic history and observe the many times it has been tried and has failed. And you, me boy, think it is "reality". Which simply proves you to be disconnected with reality in a really fast way. Just like your hero, Sowell.

I hardly hate Sowell. I simply try to see him as he is, and he is certainly not a great economic professor. Like a number of economists, he chose to take the big bucks, siding with the movers and shakers of the Libertarian push who make econ professors the best offers out there. Sowell is a rich economist. But his theories are hardly of interest to serious economists. History majors who are con trolls and have very little economic understanding may be impressed. What was that? Two classes in economics you have had, and you are an expert on the best economists, choosing Sowell? Are you simply trying to prove you are a joke? Sowell is a close associate of the folks at CATO, particularly Charles Koch and his brother. Who are well known to pay economists with low ethics to push their views. Yup, that would be your way of proving he is a great economist. Economists with ethics have the class to stay impartial. Unlike Sowell.

You claim to have taught economics at the college level...yet didn't know what I was referring to when I referenced The Chicago School! You want to claim Thomas Sowell is lacking in ethics? Sowell isn't on an internet chat site pretending to be something he obviously ISN'T! He has ethics...you have your fantasies. You're the George Costanza of the US Message Board!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems. With no proof.
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1. Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. They are not "their" economic system.
2. Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3. Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.
4. Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting. But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked. Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe. For others, truth is what can be proven.
5. I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly. Ever. I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not. You simply, me boy, imagine it.


Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll. So you are unaffected by the truth.


See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence. See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing. And you have no integrity.

.

Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems.

The left has no economic system? LOL!
Nope, me boy. They are lucky to have a few bucks. Countries have economic systems. Students do not. Maybe you are too stupid for econ classes.

Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems

On the one hand, Communism, on the other hand, capitalism. LOL!
Correct, me con troll. Both have good and bad points. But name the communist nation you have in mind, dipshit. Or do you want to discuss the system in general. Texts and econ profs I have known talk about strengths and weaknesses of systems. But failures of particular nations economies. Which were seldom pure anything. Certainly not pure communist, And certainly not pure capitalist.
I suspect this is too complex for you.

But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked,

Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.
1. Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2. Equality within the society.

But, here is the thing, me poor ignorant con, all you have to do is google the question. Pay me, and I will write you a short thesis.


Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern.

Besides curling up in a ball and looking for their safe space.......
Ah, more con talking points. Again no use of facts. Must be cool to be able to believe anything you want.

So you are unaffected by the truth.

I'm unaffected by the lies of the left.
Name the organizations putting out left leaning lies. There are over 100 well financed "think tanks" doing that for the right. Just a few from the left. Which is why, I suspect, you expect lies from the left. Truth is, lies from the left are few, from the right enormous.
So, as I mentioned and you prove, to a con, the truth is what they want to believe, and what they are told.

I keep having to try to educate you.

But you're so dumb. And so wrong.
I appreciate that. I long since learned to consider the source, and you are the source, so I must be smart and correct.

You do not look at evidence.

I do. And it shows me the left lies. It's what they do best.
Sure you do. Me poor ignorant con troll, you are a con. By definition, you lie constantly. You have no integrity. You lack class. And you believe what you are told to believe. So you project, believing everyone lies. They don't, me boy. Those that are not cons often have integrity, and value honesty, and class. Different world from that of the con troll.

Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?

My bet is that you do not. Hehe.
Not my claim. Must be yours, me con troll. You are bad at discussion. The texts I have used do not point to the failures or lefties or righties. Stupid statement.

Thanks for proving you know nothing at all of economics higher education. But you are truly convinced of what you have been told to believe. Sad.

Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.

1. Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2. Equality within the society.

LOL!

 

[Rshermr]

If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.

He wrote just one. Not well received, except in right wing circles. Here is a comment or two.
Responding to the question would you recommend Sowells text, the response was a list of other texts and the following in response to Sowell's text:

"I would say no. A strong and resounding "NO!"
Perhaps if you are looking for a primer on American libertarianism, it's not bad, though Rothbard is perhaps more cited.
But for an unbiased intro to economics, you would be better served by a book written by a mainstream or at least professional economist."
Is the book 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell a decent primer of the study? Will his obvious resent for non-capitalist systems interfere at all? • /r/AskSocialScience

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable. There are good texts, and there are those that fall short. This one falls short, according to the multiple reviews out there.

Thomas Sowell wrote one text on economics? You're so ignorant sometimes it's amusing.

Sowell has written 59 books to date. Ten of them deal specifically with economics.

If you would READ Sowell, Rshermr...you'd be much better at pretending to be an economist! Just saying...

Nice try, me con troll. I said he had written one educational text on economics. To the best of my knowledge. that he wrote 59 books but only ten on economics is no surprise, me ignorant clown. That is not many for a well paid economic professor. Especially one working for a Libertarian Think Tank and being paid by the Koch brothers. Only 10 on economics! Not a good basic economic text for well designed economics curriculums.
Hell, even a guy like you who only had two classes in economics should know that.
By the way, me ignorant con troll. I never in my life claimed to be an economist. Though I know a fair amount about the subject, and have a bachelors degree in economics, I never pretend to be an economist. Or anything else. My working life was in high tech, specifically mainframe software. Sales and marketing management. As I told you before. But as a con troll, with a thin skin, your personal attacks simply prove you to be a clown. But then, we all knew that already.

Can you name any education departments of colleges or universities useing Sowell's text?

 

[Rshermr]

Can you explain. Can you provide you provide proof? I think you are simply pushing dogma, with no truth at all.

Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers



One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Thomas Sowell, "Minimum Wage Madness," September 17,

Thomas Sowell is a econ prof who brags that he is a libertarian, who can not name a single successful libertarian nation, or libertarian economy. He is a close associate of the Koch brothers and their think tank, CATO. If you want a total lack of integrity, read Sowell. Known by economists as a bought and paid for clown.
But what would you expect from ed, who is himself a self admitted Libertarian, also looking for a successful libertarian economy. Poor ignorant clown.

Posting lies about the facts of minimum wage is what con trolls do All six points untrue. And the source is totally partial, a true con troll. But what would you expect of ed?

Thomas Sowell is a well respected economist who came out of college believing that communism was the best political system in existence only to change his mind when he saw what big government policies did to the sugar cane industry and it's workers in Puerto Rico. Thomas Sowell is a libertarian because he saw for himself that government isn't always the answer and often times it becomes the problem.

I was fortunate to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor when he taught one year at Amherst College. He was one of the best professors I had when I was in college. Knee jerk progressives like you, Rshermr...hate people like Sowell because they deal in reality rather than pie in the sky liberal theory.

So, you admit sowell was stupid enough to believe that communism, an economic system that never had a chance of survival, was the best. So, he started believing in communism, then changed to libertarianism, the other economic system that never had a chance of making it. Communism never succeeded, and today only a very few poor countries call themselves communist. Shows Sowell's ignorance. Then, he goes on to support an economic system even more a failure. Libertarianism, which has never succeeded in the history of the world. Great.

Relative to pie in the sky, that would be anyone who believes in Libertarianism. You see, liberal theory exists, whether you believe in it or not. Libertarianism is a dream. By nut cases who do not want to look at economic history and observe the many times it has been tried and has failed. And you, me boy, think it is "reality". Which simply proves you to be disconnected with reality in a really fast way. Just like your hero, Sowell.

I hardly hate Sowell. I simply try to see him as he is, and he is certainly not a great economic professor. Like a number of economists, he chose to take the big bucks, siding with the movers and shakers of the Libertarian push who make econ professors the best offers out there. Sowell is a rich economist. But his theories are hardly of interest to serious economists. History majors who are con trolls and have very little economic understanding may be impressed. What was that? Two classes in economics you have had, and you are an expert on the best economists, choosing Sowell? Are you simply trying to prove you are a joke? Sowell is a close associate of the folks at CATO, particularly Charles Koch and his brother. Who are well known to pay economists with low ethics to push their views. Yup, that would be your way of proving he is a great economist. Economists with ethics have the class to stay impartial. Unlike Sowell.

You claim to have taught economics at the college level.That is Lie number 1. ..yet didn't know what I was referring to when I referenced The Chicago School! That is Lie number 2. You want to claim Thomas Sowell is lacking in ethics? Sowell isn't on an internet chat site pretending to be something he obviously ISN'T! And, me boy, neither am I. He has ethics...you have your fantasies. You're the George Costanza of the US Message Board!

Ah, wondered how long it would take you to get back to pure lies and personal attacks. You know better, have been proved a lier over you lies multiple times. And you know I never ever lie. That is your purview.
But again, considering the source of the personal attacks and lies, I feel pretty good.

Relative to Sowell, your hero, I know the following.
1. He is a Libertarian. I know that because he admits it, and works for a Libertarian think tank.
2. He is totally right wing, and writes as those reviewing his text indicate, partial to the far right.
3. If he is not on the take from CATO, he is one of a very few who are not. So, that is my opinion.
4. Unless you want to show me what country is or ever has been considered a successful Libertarian economy, then I believe he is dishonest or stupid. And I am sure he is not stupid. Or do you think he is rational to believe in economic systems that have never worked in the history of mankind. I believe he pushes libertarianism because the trail toward libertarianism makes people, including himself, wealthy.

A few months ago, you went over 20 posts without a single economic post, or other post on the subject of the thread. Are you going for a new record?

 

[Oldstyle]

Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers



One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Thomas Sowell, "Minimum Wage Madness," September 17,

Thomas Sowell is a econ prof who brags that he is a libertarian, who can not name a single successful libertarian nation, or libertarian economy. He is a close associate of the Koch brothers and their think tank, CATO. If you want a total lack of integrity, read Sowell. Known by economists as a bought and paid for clown.
But what would you expect from ed, who is himself a self admitted Libertarian, also looking for a successful libertarian economy. Poor ignorant clown.

Posting lies about the facts of minimum wage is what con trolls do All six points untrue. And the source is totally partial, a true con troll. But what would you expect of ed?

Thomas Sowell is a well respected economist who came out of college believing that communism was the best political system in existence only to change his mind when he saw what big government policies did to the sugar cane industry and it's workers in Puerto Rico. Thomas Sowell is a libertarian because he saw for himself that government isn't always the answer and often times it becomes the problem.

I was fortunate to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor when he taught one year at Amherst College. He was one of the best professors I had when I was in college. Knee jerk progressives like you, Rshermr...hate people like Sowell because they deal in reality rather than pie in the sky liberal theory.

So, you admit sowell was stupid enough to believe that communism, an economic system that never had a chance of survival, was the best. So, he started believing in communism, then changed to libertarianism, the other economic system that never had a chance of making it. Communism never succeeded, and today only a very few poor countries call themselves communist. Shows Sowell's ignorance. Then, he goes on to support an economic system even more a failure. Libertarianism, which has never succeeded in the history of the world. Great.

Relative to pie in the sky, that would be anyone who believes in Libertarianism. You see, liberal theory exists, whether you believe in it or not. Libertarianism is a dream. By nut cases who do not want to look at economic history and observe the many times it has been tried and has failed. And you, me boy, think it is "reality". Which simply proves you to be disconnected with reality in a really fast way. Just like your hero, Sowell.

I hardly hate Sowell. I simply try to see him as he is, and he is certainly not a great economic professor. Like a number of economists, he chose to take the big bucks, siding with the movers and shakers of the Libertarian push who make econ professors the best offers out there. Sowell is a rich economist. But his theories are hardly of interest to serious economists. History majors who are con trolls and have very little economic understanding may be impressed. What was that? Two classes in economics you have had, and you are an expert on the best economists, choosing Sowell? Are you simply trying to prove you are a joke? Sowell is a close associate of the folks at CATO, particularly Charles Koch and his brother. Who are well known to pay economists with low ethics to push their views. Yup, that would be your way of proving he is a great economist. Economists with ethics have the class to stay impartial. Unlike Sowell.

You claim to have taught economics at the college level.That is Lie number 1. ..yet didn't know what I was referring to when I referenced The Chicago School! That is Lie number 2. You want to claim Thomas Sowell is lacking in ethics? Sowell isn't on an internet chat site pretending to be something he obviously ISN'T! And, me boy, neither am I. He has ethics...you have your fantasies. You're the George Costanza of the US Message Board!

Ah, wondered how long it would take you to get back to pure lies and personal attacks. You know better, have been proved a lier over you lies multiple times. And you know I never ever lie. That is your purview.
But again, considering the source of the personal attacks and lies, I feel pretty good.

Relative to Sowell, your hero, I know the following.
1. He is a Libertarian. I know that because he admits it, and works for a Libertarian think tank.
2. He is totally right wing, and writes as those reviewing his text indicate, partial to the far right.
3. If he is not on the take from CATO, he is one of a very few who are not.
4. Unless you want to show me what country is or ever has been considered a successful Libertarian economy, then I believe he is dishonest or stupid. And I am sure he is not stupid. Or do you think he is rational to believe in economic systems that have never worked in the history of mankind.

A few months ago, you went over 20 posts without a single economic post, or other post on the subject of the thread. Are you going for a new record?

Were you referring to the 20 posts where I ridiculed you for your total ignorance of economics? When come on here and pose as you do, Georgie...you should be prepared to be lampooned for it!

For some reason you seem to believe that Libertarianism is a "far right" view point! It isn't...and neither is Thomas Sowell.

As for why there hasn't been a successful Libertarian country? The answer to that is quite obvious. It's the nature of government. Countries are run by those seeking or having power. Adopting Libertarian policies means those having power would have to surrender it. You don't see Libertarian countries because you don't see countries in which those who control things are willing to surrender that control.

 

[Rshermr]

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
2. It is stupid. Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3. Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "texts that point out the failures of their economic systems." Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way. My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education. But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue? Of course you do not. But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll. There is this thing called integrity. Professors I have met have it. Most cons do not.


As a con troll, you tend to need correcting.

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.

Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.
1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems. With no proof.
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1. Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. They are not "their" economic system.
2. Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3. Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.
4. Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting. But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked. Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe. For others, truth is what can be proven.
5. I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly. Ever. I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not. You simply, me boy, imagine it.


Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll. So you are unaffected by the truth.


See above. I keep having to try to educate you. Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence. See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing. And you have no integrity.

.

Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems.

The left has no economic system? LOL!
Nope, me boy. They are lucky to have a few bucks. Countries have economic systems. Students do not. Maybe you are too stupid for econ classes.

Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems

On the one hand, Communism, on the other hand, capitalism. LOL!
Correct, me con troll. Both have good and bad points. But name the communist nation you have in mind, dipshit. Or do you want to discuss the system in general. Texts and econ profs I have known talk about strengths and weaknesses of systems. But failures of particular nations economies. Which were seldom pure anything. Certainly not pure communist, And certainly not pure capitalist.
I suspect this is too complex for you.

But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked,

Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.
1. Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2. Equality within the society.

But, here is the thing, me poor ignorant con, all you have to do is google the question. Pay me, and I will write you a short thesis.


Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern.

Besides curling up in a ball and looking for their safe space.......
Ah, more con talking points. Again no use of facts. Must be cool to be able to believe anything you want.

So you are unaffected by the truth.

I'm unaffected by the lies of the left.
Name the organizations putting out left leaning lies. There are over 100 well financed "think tanks" doing that for the right. Just a few from the left. Which is why, I suspect, you expect lies from the left. Truth is, lies from the left are few, from the right enormous.
So, as I mentioned and you prove, to a con, the truth is what they want to believe, and what they are told.

I keep having to try to educate you.

But you're so dumb. And so wrong.
I appreciate that. I long since learned to consider the source, and you are the source, so I must be smart and correct.

You do not look at evidence.

I do. And it shows me the left lies. It's what they do best.
Sure you do. Me poor ignorant con troll, you are a con. By definition, you lie constantly. You have no integrity. You lack class. And you believe what you are told to believe. So you project, believing everyone lies. They don't, me boy. Those that are not cons often have integrity, and value honesty, and class. Different world from that of the con troll.

Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?

My bet is that you do not. Hehe.
Not my claim. Must be yours, me con troll. You are bad at discussion. The texts I have used do not point to the failures or lefties or righties. Stupid statement.

Thanks for proving you know nothing at all of economics higher education. But you are truly convinced of what you have been told to believe. Sad.

Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.

1. Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2. Equality within the society.

LOL!
So, you think those two primary points on Communism are untrue? But the only comment you are capable of is a childish LOL. Wow, you really are weak.
You seem to have an antagonistic attitude toward economic systems you do not like. To be clear, even when I first started in economics, in the 1960's, I believed personally that communism was bound to fail. Simple deduction based on what I saw, as others did, of personal issues. IE, people would not put up with it, or perform well within it. There were other problems, but that was the principle one. However, it was an economic system and I would have no problem if the people agreed to it being what they wanted.
If you want to look at the advantages and disadvantages of Communism, here is part of one, relative to the advantages (which you asked about). What I gave you above is valid. As was the suggestion that google would be a better way of finding what students of the subject have come to believe.

"The Benefits of Communism
Theoretically, there are many benefits that can be achieved through a communist society. Communist ideology supports widespread universal social welfare. Improvements in public health and education, provision of child care, provision of state-directed social services, and provision of social benefits will, theoretically, help to raise labor productivity and advance a society in its development. Communist ideology advocates universal education with a focus on developing the proletariat with knowledge, class consciousness, and historical understanding. Communism supports the emancipation of women and the ending of their exploitation. Both cultural and educational policy in communist states have emphasized the development of a “New Man”—a class-conscious, knowledgeable, heroic, proletarian person devoted to work and social cohesion, as opposed to the antithetic “bourgeois individualist” associated with cultural backwardness and social atomization.

Other theoretically beneficial ideas characteristic of communist societies include:

1. People are equal. In a communist regime, people are treated equally in the eyes of the government regardless of education, financial standing, et cetera. Economic boundaries don’t separate or categorize people, which can help mitigate crime and violence.
2. Every citizen can keep a job. In a communist system, people are entitled to jobs. Because the government owns all means of production, the government can provide jobs for at least a majority of the people. Everyone in a communist country is given enough work opportunities to live and survive. Every citizen, however, must do his or her part for the economy to receive pay and other work benefits.
3. There is an internally stable economic system. In communism, the government dictates economic structure; therefore, economic instability is out of the question. Every citizen is required to work in order to receive benefits, and those who don’t have corresponding sanctions. This creates an incentive to participate and to encourage economic growth.
4. Strong social communities are established. In communism, there are certain laws and goals which determine resource and responsibility allocation. If the citizens abide by these laws, this leads to a harmonious spirit of sharing one goal. Consequently, this builds stronger social communities and an even stronger economy.
5. Competition doesn’t exist. In communist societies, everyone can work harmoniously without stepping on each other’s toes. Work, responsibility, and rewards are shared equally among the citizens. If people have no sense of envy, jealousy or ambitions that counter the goals of the state, then a harmonious economic development can be maintained.
6. Efficient distribution of resources. In a communist society, the sense of cooperation allows for efficiency in resource distribution. This is very important, especially in times of need and in emergency situations.

Reading: The Benefits of Communism | International Business

So, that is what impartial students of the subject see, though every list of advantages is different. But it gives you some idea of what the "good" points are, and the lists of disadvantages are equally long or longer. Or, you can simply drop back to the conservative talking points, and practice being a con troll with no ability to have a rational discussion.

 

[Rshermr]

Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers



One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Thomas Sowell, "Minimum Wage Madness," September 17,

Thomas Sowell is a econ prof who brags that he is a libertarian, who can not name a single successful libertarian nation, or libertarian economy. He is a close associate of the Koch brothers and their think tank, CATO. If you want a total lack of integrity, read Sowell. Known by economists as a bought and paid for clown.
But what would you expect from ed, who is himself a self admitted Libertarian, also looking for a successful libertarian economy. Poor ignorant clown.

Posting lies about the facts of minimum wage is what con trolls do All six points untrue. And the source is totally partial, a true con troll. But what would you expect of ed?

Thomas Sowell is a well respected economist who came out of college believing that communism was the best political system in existence only to change his mind when he saw what big government policies did to the sugar cane industry and it's workers in Puerto Rico. Thomas Sowell is a libertarian because he saw for himself that government isn't always the answer and often times it becomes the problem.

I was fortunate to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor when he taught one year at Amherst College. He was one of the best professors I had when I was in college. Knee jerk progressives like you, Rshermr...hate people like Sowell because they deal in reality rather than pie in the sky liberal theory.

So, you admit sowell was stupid enough to believe that communism, an economic system that never had a chance of survival, was the best. So, he started believing in communism, then changed to libertarianism, the other economic system that never had a chance of making it. Communism never succeeded, and today only a very few poor countries call themselves communist. Shows Sowell's ignorance. Then, he goes on to support an economic system even more a failure. Libertarianism, which has never succeeded in the history of the world. Great.

Relative to pie in the sky, that would be anyone who believes in Libertarianism. You see, liberal theory exists, whether you believe in it or not. Libertarianism is a dream. By nut cases who do not want to look at economic history and observe the many times it has been tried and has failed. And you, me boy, think it is "reality". Which simply proves you to be disconnected with reality in a really fast way. Just like your hero, Sowell.

I hardly hate Sowell. I simply try to see him as he is, and he is certainly not a great economic professor. Like a number of economists, he chose to take the big bucks, siding with the movers and shakers of the Libertarian push who make econ professors the best offers out there. Sowell is a rich economist. But his theories are hardly of interest to serious economists. History majors who are con trolls and have very little economic understanding may be impressed. What was that? Two classes in economics you have had, and you are an expert on the best economists, choosing Sowell? Are you simply trying to prove you are a joke? Sowell is a close associate of the folks at CATO, particularly Charles Koch and his brother. Who are well known to pay economists with low ethics to push their views. Yup, that would be your way of proving he is a great economist. Economists with ethics have the class to stay impartial. Unlike Sowell.

You claim to have taught economics at the college level.That is Lie number 1. ..yet didn't know what I was referring to when I referenced The Chicago School! That is Lie number 2. You want to claim Thomas Sowell is lacking in ethics? Sowell isn't on an internet chat site pretending to be something he obviously ISN'T! And, me boy, neither am I. He has ethics...you have your fantasies. You're the George Costanza of the US Message Board!

Ah, wondered how long it would take you to get back to pure lies and personal attacks. You know better, have been proved a lier over you lies multiple times. And you know I never ever lie. That is your purview.
But again, considering the source of the personal attacks and lies, I feel pretty good.

Relative to Sowell, your hero, I know the following.
1. He is a Libertarian. I know that because he admits it, and works for a Libertarian think tank.
2. He is totally right wing, and writes as those reviewing his text indicate, partial to the far right.
3. If he is not on the take from CATO, he is one of a very few who are not.
4. Unless you want to show me what country is or ever has been considered a successful Libertarian economy, then I believe he is dishonest or stupid. And I am sure he is not stupid. Or do you think he is rational to believe in economic systems that have never worked in the history of mankind.

A few months ago, you went over 20 posts without a single economic post, or other post on the subject of the thread. Are you going for a new record?

Were you referring to the 20 posts where I ridiculed you for your total ignorance of economics? No, I referred to the 20 posts made up nearly totally of lies and untrue attacks. As you well know. When come on here and pose as you do, Georgie...you should be prepared to be lampooned for it! And you think, as a basic food services worker, you have the right to lie about people. But then, you do not. And, as you well know, I never pose. My accomplishments in life are quite simple. I feel neither pride nor shame in what i have done. But I do not, with out question, feel any need to POSE. So, I never do. Posing, me boy, is just a form of lying. And I never ever lie. Again, you do, have been caught at it multiple times, and appear to have no concern about it. I never, ever lie. And if I am wrong, which I am at times, I admit it.

For some reason you seem to believe that Libertarianism is a "far right" view point! It isn't.. I suspect you think you just made a profound statement. You actually, in fact, just posted a libertarian definition that Sowell would be proud of. .and neither is Thomas Sowell.
Libertarianism, me boy, is neither left wing or right. But Economic libertarianism is pushed by those in this country as right wing Laissez Faire capitalist economics. Little to no government, no ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from their government. Or, said another way, it is Laissez Faire Economics. And, Libertarian economics nor Laissez Faire economics has never worked. And yes, the reason is obvious. It is the nature of people, who do not want to be controlled by large and powerful organizations. And corporations, who do not want to give up power or see their revenues drop. Money and power flow to the top, the people suffer. And the result is always that the economy craters.

As for why there hasn't been a successful Libertarian country? The answer to that is quite obvious. It's the nature of government. Countries are run by those seeking or having power. Adopting Libertarian policies means those having power would have to surrender it. You don't see Libertarian countries because you don't see countries in which those who control things are willing to surrender that control.

Sort of. Or as most would put it, the people will not put up with the concentrated power of a few private concerns who end up controlling the people and resources of the nation. The result is always revolt, peaceful via the government or not so peaceful.

 

[Oldstyle]

Thomas Sowell is a well respected economist who came out of college believing that communism was the best political system in existence only to change his mind when he saw what big government policies did to the sugar cane industry and it's workers in Puerto Rico. Thomas Sowell is a libertarian because he saw for himself that government isn't always the answer and often times it becomes the problem.

I was fortunate to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor when he taught one year at Amherst College. He was one of the best professors I had when I was in college. Knee jerk progressives like you, Rshermr...hate people like Sowell because they deal in reality rather than pie in the sky liberal theory.

So, you admit sowell was stupid enough to believe that communism, an economic system that never had a chance of survival, was the best. So, he started believing in communism, then changed to libertarianism, the other economic system that never had a chance of making it. Communism never succeeded, and today only a very few poor countries call themselves communist. Shows Sowell's ignorance. Then, he goes on to support an economic system even more a failure. Libertarianism, which has never succeeded in the history of the world. Great.

Relative to pie in the sky, that would be anyone who believes in Libertarianism. You see, liberal theory exists, whether you believe in it or not. Libertarianism is a dream. By nut cases who do not want to look at economic history and observe the many times it has been tried and has failed. And you, me boy, think it is "reality". Which simply proves you to be disconnected with reality in a really fast way. Just like your hero, Sowell.

I hardly hate Sowell. I simply try to see him as he is, and he is certainly not a great economic professor. Like a number of economists, he chose to take the big bucks, siding with the movers and shakers of the Libertarian push who make econ professors the best offers out there. Sowell is a rich economist. But his theories are hardly of interest to serious economists. History majors who are con trolls and have very little economic understanding may be impressed. What was that? Two classes in economics you have had, and you are an expert on the best economists, choosing Sowell? Are you simply trying to prove you are a joke? Sowell is a close associate of the folks at CATO, particularly Charles Koch and his brother. Who are well known to pay economists with low ethics to push their views. Yup, that would be your way of proving he is a great economist. Economists with ethics have the class to stay impartial. Unlike Sowell.

You claim to have taught economics at the college level.That is Lie number 1. ..yet didn't know what I was referring to when I referenced The Chicago School! That is Lie number 2. You want to claim Thomas Sowell is lacking in ethics? Sowell isn't on an internet chat site pretending to be something he obviously ISN'T! And, me boy, neither am I. He has ethics...you have your fantasies. You're the George Costanza of the US Message Board!

Ah, wondered how long it would take you to get back to pure lies and personal attacks. You know better, have been proved a lier over you lies multiple times. And you know I never ever lie. That is your purview.
But again, considering the source of the personal attacks and lies, I feel pretty good.

Relative to Sowell, your hero, I know the following.
1. He is a Libertarian. I know that because he admits it, and works for a Libertarian think tank.
2. He is totally right wing, and writes as those reviewing his text indicate, partial to the far right.
3. If he is not on the take from CATO, he is one of a very few who are not.
4. Unless you want to show me what country is or ever has been considered a successful Libertarian economy, then I believe he is dishonest or stupid. And I am sure he is not stupid. Or do you think he is rational to believe in economic systems that have never worked in the history of mankind.

A few months ago, you went over 20 posts without a single economic post, or other post on the subject of the thread. Are you going for a new record?

Were you referring to the 20 posts where I ridiculed you for your total ignorance of economics? No, I referred to the 20 posts made up nearly totally of lies and untrue attacks. As you well know. When come on here and pose as you do, Georgie...you should be prepared to be lampooned for it! And you think, as a basic food services worker, you have the right to lie about people. But then, you do not. And, as you well know, I never pose. My accomplishments in life are quite simple. I feel neither pride nor shame in what i have done. But I do not, with out question, feel any need to POSE. So, I never do. Posing, me boy, is just a form of lying. And I never ever lie. Again, you do, have been caught at it multiple times, and appear to have no concern about it. I never, ever lie. And if I am wrong, which I am at times, I admit it.

For some reason you seem to believe that Libertarianism is a "far right" view point! It isn't.. I suspect you think you just made a profound statement. You actually, in fact, just posted a libertarian definition that Sowell would be proud of. .and neither is Thomas Sowell.
Libertarianism, me boy, is neither left wing or right. But Economic libertarianism is pushed by those in this country as right wing Laissez Faire capitalist economics. Little to no government, no ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from their government. Or, said another way, it is Laissez Faire Economics. And, Libertarian economics nor Laissez Faire economics has never worked. And yes, the reason is obvious. It is the nature of people, who do not want to be controlled by large and powerful organizations. And corporations, who do not want to give up power or see their revenues drop. Money and power flow to the top, the people suffer. And the result is always that the economy craters.

As for why there hasn't been a successful Libertarian country? The answer to that is quite obvious. It's the nature of government. Countries are run by those seeking or having power. Adopting Libertarian policies means those having power would have to surrender it. You don't see Libertarian countries because you don't see countries in which those who control things are willing to surrender that control.

Sort of. Or as most would put it, the people will not put up with the concentrated power of a few private concerns who end up controlling the people and resources of the nation. The result is always revolt, peaceful via the government or not so peaceful.

You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr. Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate? You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations? Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. They don't believe in "little to no" government. They believe in less government. You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are. "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"? Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives. America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.

 

[hadit]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle starts with another lie and personal attack, then defends libertarianism by quoting as many con talking points as he can fit in:
You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr. Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate? You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations? Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. They don't believe in "little to no" government. They believe in less government. You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are. "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"? Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives. America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.

Sort of. Or as most would put it, the people will not put up with the concentrated power of a few private concerns who end up controlling the people and resources of the nation. The result is always revolt, peaceful via the government or not so peaceful.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr. Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate? You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.
Oldstyle, you are a joke, You are lying, calling me a liar. And you know well that I never ever lie. Here is the thing, me boy. If I ever claimed such a thing, it would be in the history on this board. What was actually said is, in fact there, and I have brought it forward before, several times. It proved you to be a liar. I made no claim to have been in charge of a class of economics, which would have been over 47 years ago. I proved you a liar a couple years ago, and more recently in the past year. And I have no reason to do so again. Though I will bring back the proof should anyone other than you wish to see it. Because, you see, you know that you are lying. If someone else wants the proof, that is worth showing your lies.
Now, if I were to have said what you say I did, it would be simple for you to prove. That you can not proves you to be a liar in addition.
Nice to see you have not changed. You immediately start off with personal attacks, and lies. Then you ignore the subject (minimum wage, remember) and take off posting con talking points. Jesus, you are a waste of space.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations? Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. Sorry, but the proof is in the history of such economies. The wealthy, me boy, like to be more wealthy. And the powerfull like to be more powerful. So they see to it that the revenues are increased to the maximum and that those revenues end up in their hands. Simple enough. We who examine such things today see that occurance. Only con trolls who are told what to believe, and do so. like yourself, miss that. They don't believe in "little to no" government. They believe in less government. They believe in very little government, in general. And as things move forward for them, they typically want even less government. You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are. No, I do not. I know what anarchists are. They are not libertarians. And really, you calling someone ignorant is really a case your inability to argue a point and reverting to the normal, for you, lies and personal insults. "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"? Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives. What they believe is that the more of the pie they get, the better. So they see no reason for social security, educational services, health services, and so forth. Simple. America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.The question is not about how powerful the economy becomes, at all. You are pretending to miss the point entirely. You see, we have become less and less a Laissez Faire capitalist economy. We have provided more and more services to our people. Why, me boy? For the same, exact reason that every nation has done so. Because the people have not been willing to go along with the libertarian ideal of clowns like yourself.
The people, not the owners of power, are what ends libertarian hopes. In every single case. Which is why, as I have said and continue to point out that there is not a single Libertarian nation today, and has never been a successful libertarian nation ever, in the history of the world. And you, and other libertarian minded people, seem incapable of seeing that in every case it has ever been tried, it has ended in failure. But you continue to push it, having bought the dream pushed on you by those who would actually benefit from both the push toward libertarianism through reduced costs for their corporations, and for the end result that they will never achieve.
What proves Libertarian wanabe's like yourself to be stupid is that you are incapable of understanding that with hundreds of countries over hundreds of years, the great Libertarian dream has never worked. No such libertarian economy ever worked. All went down, peacefully or in flames. How stupid do you have to be to miss that, dipshit? You are a proven con troll, me boy. I always know that you will take the side of the con dream in every single discussion of any subject. You are, as are all cons, predictable. But pushing the Libertarian dream makes you a joke.
Simple, me boy, bring forward the name of a successful LIBERTARIAN nation, as named by an expert source, with proof that it is Libertarian, and I will admit it is possible. Otherwise, get back to the subject of this thread and stop your silly insults and lies.

 

[Rshermr]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

 

[hadit]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight and bad things would happen. And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself?

 

[Rshermr]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

 

[hadit]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

Here's a question even the terminally uninformed should be able to answer.

When a company has a job that needs to be done, which option will it take?

1. Buy a machine that can do the job well, takes no time off and has no attitude issues.
2. Hire a human that costs more than the machine, takes time off, and has attitude issues.

Rising the MW simply makes automation more economically viable, which replaces more expensive humans. If the gas station could hire a human to pump gas and check the oil for LESS than the cost of a self-serve pump, it would. And why again does the human cost more than the machine? Be honest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

 

[Rshermr]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

Here's a question even the terminally uninformed should be able to answer.

When a company has a job that needs to be done, which option will it take?

1. Buy a machine that can do the job well, takes no time off and has no attitude issues.
2. Hire a human that costs more than the machine, takes time off, and has attitude issues.

Here is an answer to your terminally stupid question:
Simple enough. he will do what costs the least. Which says, me boy, he will hire a person at a wage which will not allow the person to live, or he will buy the machine. Which is why there are no jobs left to pump gas. Even the terminally uninformed know that. Sorry you missed it.

Rising the MW simply makes automation more economically viable, which replaces more expensive humans. If the gas station could hire a human to pump gas and check the oil for LESS than the cost of a self-serve pump, it would. And why again does the human cost more than the machine? Be honest.
Simple, but really ignorant question. Have an intelligent phone? Think for a minute. If you are capable. The technology of the self serve pump has increased by the cost of the electronics. Now, you try to be honest, if possible.
1. Do you really think that anyone can work for what they used to prior to automated gas pumps????
2. Look around. See any gas pump attendant?
3. Did you notice that those attendants were long ago phased out?
4. The gas station owners profits have been squeezed to near starvation levels.
5. The oil companies were making record profits, prior to the oil glut over the past couple years.
Blaming minimum wage for automated gas stations is close to the stupidest thing I have seen anyone suggest. Really, really stupid.

Now, here is a hard one, I am afraid, for you. What does all that have to do with minimum wage?
And please, if you are capable, spend a bit of time with google. and try to find an impartial source that suggests that raising the minimum wage has ever done what you say it will do. Best of luck with that.

 

[Rshermr]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is true. In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less. Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise. I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more? In the short term, the job market would be chaos. In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious? Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better? Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way. Never, me boy. And only a really stupid person would believe that.
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's. Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe. Looks that way to me.

And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight Uh, you missed the truth again. You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT. Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years. and bad things would happen. Your opinion. Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea? And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers. And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself? Funny. I am the grandpa. I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil. For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings. And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy. Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete. Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on. And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon. You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject. Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted? Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing. I was not complaining at all. But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy. But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.

Have you always been delusional?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

You got that from the above sentence that I posted?

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.

I was not complaining at all.

These weren't complaints?

For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.